The Curse of
Allen P. Ross
The bizarre little story in Genesis
9:18-27 about Noah's
drunkenness
and exposure along with the resultant cursing of
does
Noah, the spiritual giant of the Flood, appear in such a bad
light?
What exactly did Ham do to Noah? Who is
should
he be cursed for something he did not do? Although
problems
like these preoccupy much of the study of this passage,
their
solutions are tied to the more basic question of the purpose
of
the account in the theological argument of Genesis.
Genesis, the book of beginnings, is
primarily concerned with
tracing
the development of God's program of blessing. The bless-
ing is pronounced on God's creation,
but sin (with its subsequent
curse)
brought deterioration and decay. After the Flood there is a
new
beginning with a renewal of the decrees of blessing, but once
again
corruption and rebellion leave the human race alienated
and
scattered across the face of the earth. Against this backdrop
God
began His program of blessing again, promising blessing to
those
obedient in faith and cursing to those who rebel. The rest of
the
book explains how this blessing developed: God's chosen
people
would become a great nation and inherit the
aan. So throughout Genesis the
motifs of blessing and cursing
occur
again and again in connection with those who are chosen
and
those who are not.
An important foundation for these motifs
is found in the
oracle
of Noah. Ham's impropriety toward the nakedness of his
father
prompted an oracle with far-reaching implications. Ca-
224 Bibliotheca Sacra-July-September
1980
naan was cursed; but
Shem, the ancestor of
were
blessed. It seems almost incredible that a relatively minor
event
would have such major repercussions. But consistently in
the
narratives of Genesis, one finds that the fate of both men
and
nations is determined by occurrences that seem trivial and
commonplace.
The main characters of these stories acted on
natural
impulse in their own interests, but the narrator is con-
cerned with the
greater significance of their actions. Thus it
becomes
evident that out of the virtues and vices of Noah's sons
come
the virtues and vices of the families of the world.1
The purpose of this section in Genesis,
then, is to portray the
characteristics
of the three branches of the human race in rela-
tion to blessing and
cursing. In pronouncing the oracle, Noah
discerned
the traits of his sons and, in a moment of insight,
determined
that the attributes of their descendants were em-
bodied
in their personalities.2 Because these sons were pri-
mogenitors of the families
of the earth, the narrator is more
interested
in the greater meaning of the oracle with respect to
tribes
and nations in his day than with the children of Shem,
Ham,
and Japheth.3
Shem, the ancestor of the Shemites to whom the Hebrews
belonged,
acted in good taste and was blessed with the possession
of
the knowledge of the true God, Yahweh. Japheth, the ancestor
of
the far-flung northern tribes which include the Hellenic
peoples,4
also acted properly and thus shared in the blessing of
Shem
and was promised geographical expansion. In contrast,
Ham,
represented most clearly to
Canaanites,
acted wrongly in violating sexual customs regarded
as
sacred and as a result had one line of his descendants cursed
with
subjugation.5
So the oracle of Noah, far from being
concerned simply with
the
fortunes of the immediate family, actually pertains to vast
movements
of ancient peoples.6 Portraying their tendencies as
originating
in individual ancestors, the book of beginnings an-
ticipates the expected
destinies of these tribes and nations. Vos
fittingly
notes that it occurred at a time when no event could fail to
influence
history.7
The
Prologue (Gen. 9:18-19)
Genesis 9:18-19 provides not only an
introduction to this
narrative
but also a literary bridge between the Flood narrative
The Curse of
and
the table of nations. The reader of Genesis is already familiar
with
the listing of the main characters of this story: Noah and his
three
sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:1; and
later
in 10:1). But in this passage two qualifications are supplied.
They
were the sons of Noah who came out of the ark, and they
were
the progenitors from whom all the nations of the earth
originated.
The first description connects the characters to
the
Flood account, and the second relates them to the table of
nations.
Of greater significance for the present
narrative, however, is
the
circumstantial clause in verse 18, "Now Ham was the father of
redactor's
attempt to harmonize the deed of Ham and the curse of
have
been done more effectively without leaving such a rough
trace.
The point of this clause seems rather to show the connection
of
cal
note, which would be superfluous in view of chapter 10, the
narrative
is tracing the beginnings of the family and shows that
Ham,
acting as he did, revealed himself as the true father of
Canaan.9
The immediate transfer of the reference to
would
call to the Israelite mind a number of unfavorable images
about
these people they knew, for anyone familiar with the
Canaanites
would see the same tendencies in their ancestor from
this
decisive beginning. So this little additional note anticipates
the
proper direction in the story.
The Event (Gen. 9:20-23)
NOAH'S
BEHAVIOR
The behavior of Noah after the Flood
provided the occasion
for
the violation of Ham. Noah then acted so differently from
before
the Flood that some commentators have suggested that a
different
person is in view here.10 But the text simply presents one
person.
The man who watched in righteousness over a wicked
world
then planted a vineyard, became drunk, and lay naked in
his
tent. Or, as Francisco said it, "With the opportunity to start an
ideal
society Noah was found drunk in his tent."11
This deterioration of character seems to
be consistent with
the
thematic arrangement of at least the early portion of Genesis,
if
not all of the book. Each major section of the book has the
heading
tOdl;OT
hl.,xe, commonly translated "these are
the genera-
226
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
tions of." The narratives that follow each heading
provide the
particulars
about the person, telling what became of him and his
descendants.
In each case there is a deterioration from beginning
to
end. In fact the entire Book of Genesis presents the same
pattern:
The book begins with man (Adam) in the garden under
the
blessing of God, but ends with a man (Joseph) in a coffin in
was
righteous and blameless before the LORD, and ended in
9:18-27
with Noah in a degraded condition. But it was a low
experience
from which God would bring brighter prospects in
the
future.
Noah, described as a "man of the
soil" (9:20), began by plant-
ing a vineyard. This epithet (hmAdAxEhA wyxi)
is probably designed to say
more
than that he was a human farmer. In view of the fact that he
is
presented as the patriarch of the survivors of the Flood, Noah
would
be considered as the master of the earth, or as Rashi
understood
it, the lord of the earth.12
The two verbs (fF.ayiva ... lH,y.Ava) in the
sentence are best taken as
a
verbal hendiadys, "he proceeded to plant" a vineyard. Whether
he
was the first man in history to have done so is not stated, but
he
was the first to do so after the Flood. The head of the only family
of
the earth then produced the vine from the ground that previ-
ously produced
minimal sustenance amid thorns.
The antediluvian narratives represent
various beginnings,
none
of which appear particularly virtuous. Besides Noah's be-
ginning
in viticulture, the first "hunter" is mentioned in 10:8.
Nimrod
was the first (lHehe) "to be a
mighty warrior on the earth."
And
in 11:6, concerning the activities of
"they
have begun (Ml.AHiha) to do
this." The use of the same verb in
all
these passages provides an ominous note to the stories.
The planting of the vineyard, however,
appears to be for Noah
a
step forward from the cursed ground. Since Lamech,
Noah's
father,
toiled under the curse,13 he hoped that his son would be
able
to bring about some comfort (5:29) and so he called him
Noah,
which means "comfort." Perhaps Noah hoped that cheer
and
comfort would come from this new venture.
The vine in the Bible is considered
noble. The psalmist de-
scribed
the vine as God's provision, stating that it "gladdens the
heart
of man" (104:15). A parable in Judges has a vine saying,
"Should
I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men?"
(9:13).
Not only did the fruit of the vine alleviate the pain of the
cursed,
but also it is the symbol of coming bliss in the Messianic
The Curse of
age.
Zechariah 8:12 and Isaiah 25:6 describe the future age by
employing
this idea.14
But while it may be that wine alleviates
to some degree the
painful
toil of the ground, the Old Testament often warns of the
moral
dangers attending this new step in human development.
Those
taking strong vows were prohibited from drinking wine
(Num.
6); and those assuming responsible positions of rulership
were
given the proverbial instruction that strong drink is not for
kings,
but for those about to die (Prov. 31:4-5).
The story of Noah shows the degrading
effects of the wine -
drunkenness
and nakedness. No blame is attached in this telling
of
the event, but it is difficult to ignore the prophetic oracles that
use
nakedness and drunkenness quite forcefully. Habakkuk, for
one,
announced, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors,
pouring
it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can
gaze
on their naked bodies" (2:15). Jeremiah also used the imag-
ery for shame and susceptibility to
violation and exploitation,
lamenting,
"You will be drunk and stripped naked" (Lam. 4:21).
Since the prophets view drunkenness and
nakedness as
signs
of weakness and susceptibility to shameful destruction,
many
have condemned Noah's activities. The Talmud records
that
Noah was to be considered righteous only when compared
with
his wicked generation.15 All
that Rashi would say was that
Noah
degraded himself by not planting something else.16 Most
commentators
at least view it as an ironic contrast in Noah's
character17
if not an activity that is in actual disharmony with the
picture
of the man given earlier.18
On the other hand there have been many
who have attempted
to
exonerate Noah in one way or another. Medieval Jews took it in
an
idealistic way, saying that Noah planted the vine in order to
understand
sin in a better way and thus to be able to warn the
world
of its effects.19 Various scholars have tried to free Noah from
blame
by viewing the passage as an "inventor saga."20 Noah, the
inventor
of wine, was overpowered by the unsuspected force of the
fruit
and experienced the degradation of the discovery.21
Cohen takes the exoneration a step
further. Observing that
the
motif of wine in the ancient world was associated with sexual-
ity, he argues that Noah was
attempting to maintain his procrea-
tive ability to obey
the new commission to populate the earth. To
substantiate
his view, Cohen drew on the analogy of
daughters
(Gen. 19:30-38) and David with Uriah and Bathsheba
(2
Sam. 11:12-13), since wine was used in each case to promote
228
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
sexual
activity.22 Cohen acclaims
the old man for playing the role
so
well.
It cannot be denied that wine has been
used in connection
with
sex. However, Cohen's theory, no matter how fascinating,
must
be rejected as a highly speculative interpretation. It is more
plausible
to proceed on clear evidence and to take a normal,
sensible
approach. Later biblical allusions show drunkenness
and
nakedness to be shameful weaknesses, often used figura-
tively for
susceptibility before enemies. Noah is thus not pre-
sented in a good
light.
In view of this, it appears that along
with the primary intent
of
the narrative to set the stage for the oracle, the passage also
presents
a polemic against pagan mythology.23 The old world saw
attributed
the invention of wine to the god Osiris, and Greek
literature
attributed it to Dionysius. The Genesis account, by
contrast,
considers the beginning of wine and its effect on man as
less
than divine. It has the trappings of depravity. Cursing and
slavery,
rather than festive joy, proceed from its introduction into
the
world. Any nation delighting in the vices of wine and naked-
ness,
this polemic implies, is already in slavery.
HAM'S
VIOLATION
Noah's condition prompted the sin of his
son Ham. Ham, who
again
is said to be the father of
ness
and told his two brothers outside" (9:22). They in response
carefully
came in and covered the old man. When Noah learned
what
Ham had done to him, he cursed
Shem
and Japheth.
What did Ham do that was serious enough
to warrant such a
response?
One answer is that Ham did nothing at all to deserve
such
a blistering curse. Many writers believe that two traditions
have
been pieced together here, one about Ham and another
about
resolved
when it is recognized that this passage contains two
parallel
but different traditions of Noah's family."24 In fact he
states
that no interpretation that considers the story to be a unity
can
do justice to the text. But it must be noted in passing that
positing
two traditions in no way solves the tension; instead it
raises
another. If the parts of the story were from two irreconcil-
able
traditions, what caused them to be united? To assert that
two
differing accounts were used does not do justice to the final,
The Curse of
fixed
form of the text. The event was obviously understood to be
the
basis of the oracle which follows in 9:24-27.
Some commentators attempt to reconstruct
what took place.
Figart suggests that
Ham and his brothers came to see Noah, and
that
Ham went in alone, discovered his father's condition, and
reported
it to his brothers who remedied the situation. Figart's
point
is that there was no sin by Ham.25 He suggests that
the
youngest, must have been responsible for the deed that in-
curred the curse.
But it seems clear enough that the story
is contrasting Ham,
the
father of
not
seeing the nakedness. The oracle curses Ham's descendant,
but
blesses the descendants of Shem and Japheth. If
rather
than Ham were the guilty one, why was Ham not included
in
the blessing? Shufelt, suggesting also that
violator,
reckons that Ham was reckless.26 But it seems that the
narrative
is placing the violation on Ham.
Many theories have been put forward
concerning this viola-
tion of Ham. Several
writers have felt that the expression "he saw
his
nakedness" is a euphemism for a gross violation. Cassuto
speculates
that the pre-Torah account may have been uglier but
was
reduced to minimal proportions.27 Greek and Semitic stories
occasionally
tell how castration was used to prevent procreation
in
order to seize the power to populate the earth.28 The Talmud
records
that this view was considered by the Rabbis: "Rab
and
Samuel
[differ], one maintaining that he castrated him, and the
other
that he abused him sexually."29 The only possible textual
evidence
to support such a crime would come from Genesis 9:24,
which
says that Noah "found out what his youngest son had done
to
him. " But the remedy for Ham's "deed" is the covering of Noah's
nakedness.
How would throwing the garment over him without
looking
undo such a deed and merit the blessing?
Bassett presents a view based on the
idiomatic use of the
words
"uncover the nakedness."30 He suggests that Ham engaged
in
sexual intercourse with Noah's wife, and that
cursed
because he was the fruit of that union. He attempts to
show
that to "see another's nakedness" is the same as sexual
intercourse,
and that a later redactor who missed the idiomatic
meaning
added the words in 9:23.
But the evidence for this interpretation
is minimal. The ex-
pression hvAr;f, hxArA
is used in Scripture for shameful exposure,
mostly
of a woman or as a figure of a city in shameful punishment,
exposed
and defenseless. This is quite different from the idiom
used
for sexual violation, hvAr;f, hlAGA,
"he uncovered the nakedness."
It
is this construction that is used throughout Leviticus 18 and 20
to
describe the evil sexual conduct of the Canaanites. Leviticus
20:17
is the only occurrence where hxArA is used, but
even that is in
a
parallel construction with hlAGA , explaining
the incident. This one
usage
cannot be made to support Bassett's claim of an idiomatic
force
meaning sexual intercourse.
According to Genesis 9 Noah uncovered
himself (the stem is
reflexive).
If there had been any occurrence of sexual violation,
one
would expect the idiom to say, "Ham uncovered his father's
nakedness.”
Moreover, Rice observes that 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 (see Gen. 19:30-38).31
So there is no clear evidence that Ham
actually did anything
other
than see the nakedness of his uncovered father. To the
writer
of the narrative this was apparently serious enough to
incur
the oracle on
customs
of what Ham had been suspected of doing).
It is difficult for someone living in
the modern world to un-
derstand the modesty and
discretion of privacy called for in an-
cient morality.32
Nakedness in the Old Testament was from the
beginning
a thing of shame for fallen man. As a result of the Fall,
the
eyes of Adam and Eve were opened, and, knowing they were
naked,
they covered themselves. To them as sinners the state of
nakedness
was both undignified and vulnerable.33 The covering of
nakedness
was a sound instinct for it provided a boundary for
fallen
human relations.
Nakedness thereafter represented the
loss of human and
social
dignity. To be exposed meant to be unprotected; this can be
seen
by the fact that the horrors of the Exile are couched in the
image
of shameful nakedness (Hab. 3:13; Lam. 1:8; 4:21). To see
someone
uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage
for
potential exploitation.
By mentioning that Ham entered and saw
his father's
nakedness
the text wishes to impress that seeing is the disgust-
ing thing. Ham's frivolous looking,
a moral flaw, represents the
first
step in the abandonment of a moral code. Moreover this
violation
of a boundary destroyed the honor of Noah.
There seems to be a taboo in the Old
Testament against such
"looking"
that suggests an overstepping of the set limits by iden-
The Curse of
tification with the object
seen (Gen. 19:26; Exod. 33:20; Judg.
13:22;
1 Sam. 6:19). Ham desecrated a natural and sacred barrier
by
seeing his father's nakedness. His going out to tell his brothers
about
it without thinking to cover the naked man aggravated the
unfilial act.35
Within the boundaries of honor, seeing
the nakedness was
considered
shameful and impious. The action of Ham was an
affront
to the dignity of his father. It was a transgression of sexual
morality
against filial piety36 Because of this breach of domestic
propriety,
Ham could expect nothing less than the oracle against
his
own family honor.37
SHEM'S
AND JAPHETH'S REVERENCE
Shem and Japheth acted to preserve the
honor of their father
by
covering him with the garment (Gen. 9:23). The impression is
that
Ham completed the nakedness by bringing the garment out
to
his brothers.
The text is very careful to state that
the brothers did not see
their
father's nakedness. Their approach was cautious, their
backs
turned to Noah with the garments on their shoulders. In
contrast
to the brevity of the narrative as a whole this verse draws
out
the story in great detail in order to dramatize their sensitivity
and
piety. The point cannot be missed--this is the antithesis of
the
hubris of Ham.
The Oracle (Gen. 9:24-27)
With the brief notice that Noah knew
what his youngest son38
had
done to him, the narrative bridges the event and the oracle.
The
verb fdayA would suggest
either that Noah found out what had
transpired
or that he knew intuitively. Jacob suggests that "the
different
ways of his sons must have been known to him."39 Cer-
tainly Noah knew
enough to deliver the oracle, as Jacob much
later
had such knowledge about his sons (Gen. 49).
The essence of the oracle is the cursing
of
when
the blessings are declared for the brothers, the theme of
The very idea of someone cursing another
raises certain
questions
as to the nature of the activity. Scharbert points
out
that
(a) the curse was the reaction of someone to the misbehavior
of
another in order to keep vigorously aloof from that one and his
232
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
deed;
(b) the one cursed was a subordinate who by the cursing
would
be removed from the community relationship in which he
had
enjoyed security, justice, and success; (c) the curse was no
personal
vendetta but was used to defend sacral, social, and
national
regulations and customs; and (d) the curse was effected
by
divine intervention.40
In the ancient world the curse was only
as powerful as the one
making
it. Anyone could imprecate, but imprecation was the
strongest
when supernatural powers were invoked .41 The Torah
had
no magical ideas such as sorcery and divination (Exod.
22:17-18).
The curse found its way into
protect
its institutions. One who committed a serious transgres-
sion against
covenant stipulations was delivered up to misfor-
tune,
the activation of which was Yahweh's (Deut. 28; Josh. 6:26;
1
Sam. 26:19).
So the curse was a means of seeing that
the will of Yahweh
was
executed in divine judgment on anyone profaning what was
sacred.
It is an expression of faith in the just rule of God, for one
who
curses has no other resource. The word had no power in itself
unless
Yahweh performed it.42 Thus
it was in every sense an
oracle.
God Himself would place the ban on the individual, thus
bringing
about a paralysis of movement or other capabilities
normally
associated with a blessing.43
In this passage the honor of Noah and
the sanctity of the
family,
one of God's earliest institutions, are treated lightly and in
effect
desecrated. Noah, the man of the earth, pronounced the
oracle
of cursing. It is right, and Yahweh will fulfill it.
The second part of verse 25 specifies
the result of the curse--
abject
slavery. This meant certain subjugation, loss of freedom for
autonomous
rule, and reduction to bondage.44
A victor in war
would
gain dominion over the subjugated people so that they
might
be used as he pleased. However, in the Old Testament
slaves
were to be treated favorably, protected by law, and even
freed
in the sabbatical year (Exod. 21:2, 20).
But Noah was not content to give a
simple pronouncement of
("servant
of servants"), he declared that the one who is cursed is to
be
in the most abject slavery.
(normally
understood to refer to Shem and Japheth since the
main
idea of the curse is repeated in the next lines).
The fact that
prompted
various explanations. Of course there are those, as
already
discussed, who posit separate traditions and see two
distinct
stories that were later fused into a single account. Others
have
found reason for excusing Ham on the basis of the blessing
in
9:1. Not only would it be unusual for a person to curse what
God
had blessed, but also one would not normally curse his own
son.45
While this may partially explain Noah's choice,
it cannot be
the
whole explanation.
Kidner sees the
principle of talionic justice in the passage.
For
Ham's breach of family, his own family would falter and that
through
the youngest.46 But is it
right to curse one for the action
of
another?
The Torah does incorporate this
measure-for-measure judg-
ment from one
generation to another, but in such cases the one
judged
is receiving what he deserves. A visitation of the sins of the
fathers
on later generations will be on those who hate Yahweh
(Exod.
20:4). A later generation may be judged for the sin of an
ancestor
if they are of like mind and deed. Otherwise they may
simply
bear the fruit of some ancestor's sin.
It is unlikely that
because
he was the youngest son of Ham. On the contrary, the
Torah,
which shows that God deals justly with all men, suggests
that
Noah saw in him the evil traits that marked his father Ham.
The
text has prepared the reader for this by twice pointing out
that
Ham was the father of
weigh
heavily on Ham as he saw his family marred, it was directed
to
his descendants who retained the traits.
In this regard it must be clarified that
the
man, are in view for the fulfillment of the oracle. The names
considered
their descendants. So by this extension the oracle
predicts
the curse on the Canaanites and is much wider than a
son's
being cursed for his father, although the oracle springs from
that
incident in the family. Therefore the oracle is a prophetic
announcement
concerning the future nations. To the Hebrew
mind,
the Canaanites were the most natural embodiment of
Ham.47
Everything they did in their pagan existence was sym-
bolized in the attitude
of Ham. From the moment the patriarchs
entered
the land, these tribes were there with their corrupting
influence
(Gen. 13:18; 15:16; 18:32; 19; 38).
The Torah warned the people of the
Exodus about the wick-
edness of the
Canaanites in terms that call to mind the violation of
Ham
(Lev. 18:2-6). There follows a lengthy listing of such vile
234
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
practices
of the Canaanites (18:7-23) that the text must employ
euphemisms
to represent their deeds ("nakedness" alone is used
twenty-four
times). Because of these sins the Canaanites were
defiled
and were to be driven out before the Israelites.
The constant references to
"nakedness" and "uncovering"
and
even "seeing" in this passage, designating the people of Ca-
naan as a people
enslaved sexually, clearly reminds the reader of
the
action of Ham, the father of
the
culture of the Canaanites could read the story of their ances-
tor
dants of Ham had
advanced far beyond his violation. The attitude
that
led to the deed of Ham came to full fruition in them.
Archaeology has graphically illustrated
just how debased
these
people were. Bright writes, "Canaanite religion presents us
with
no pretty picture .... Numerous debasing practices, includ-
ing sacred prostitution,
homosexuality, and various orgias-
tic
rites, were prevalent."48 Wright and Filson
add that "the amaz-
ing thing about the gods, as they
were conceived in
that
they had no moral character whatever. In fact, their conduct
was
on a much lower level than that of society as a whole, if we can
judge
from ancient codes of law.... Worship of these gods car-
ried with it some of
the most demoralizing practices then in
existence."49
Albright appropriately adds to this observation.
It was fortunate for the future of
monotheism that the Israelites of
the conquest were a wild folk, endowed
with primitive energy and
ruthless will to exist, since the
resulting decimation of the
ites prevented the
complete fusion of the two kindred folk which
would almost inevitably have depressed Yahwistic standards to a
point where recovery was impossible.
Thus, the Canaanites, with
their orgiastic nature worship, their
cult of fertility in the form of
serpent symbols and sensuous nudity, and
their gross mythology,
were replaced by
its lofty monotheism, and its severe
code of ethics.50
So the text is informing the reader that
the Canaanite people,
known
for their shameless depravity in sexual matters and pos-
ing a continual threat to
characteristic
beginning in Ham. Yet these descendants were not
cursed
because of what Ham did; they were cursed because they
acted
exactly as their ancestor had. That moral abandon is fully
developed
in the Canaanites. The oracle announces the curse for
this.
In actual fact Noah was supplicating God
to deal with each
group
of people as they deserved, to the ancestor and descendants
alike.
Since this request was in harmony with God's will for the
preservation
of moral purity, He granted it.51 If the request had
not
been in harmony, Noah's curse would have had no result.
cumbed to enervating
influences and was doomed by its vices to
enslavement
at the hands of hardier and more virtuous races.52
Because
Ham, the "father" of
of
his father by seeing his uncovered nakedness, this divine and
prophetic
oracle is pronounced on the people who would be
known
for their immorality in a shameful way, a trait discernible
in
this little story in the history of beginnings.
The blessing aspect is given to Shem,
but the wording is
unexpected:
"Blessed be the LORD [Yahweh], the God of Shem."
The
emphasis on the possession of God by his name is
strengthened
in this line in a subtle way. Delitzsch says, "Yahweh
makes
himself a name in becoming the God of Shem, and thus
entwines
His name with that of Shem, which means ‘name.’53
By blessing one's God, the man himself
is blessed. The idea is
that
Shem will ascribe his good fortune to Yahweh his God, for his
advantage
is not personal merit; his portion is Yahweh.54 The
great
line of blessing will be continued through Shem from Noah
to
Abram, the man of promise.
Here again, however, the point of the
oracle looks to the
descendants.
It would then be clear to
selves
in such a personal, covenantal relationship with Yahweh,
that
they were the heirs of this blessing.
The announcement of Japheth's share in
the blessing of
Shem
is strengthened by the play on his name "Japheth" (tp,Ya),
from
the verb "to enlarge." Here too the descendants are in mind,
for
they will expand and spread out in the world. The second part
of
this verse is the resultant wish that Japheth will dwell in the
tents
of Shem. This is most likely an expression of the prospect of
peaceful
cohabitation.55 Certainly the prospect of this
unification
is
based on the harmony of the ancestors in the story. As a partner
in
covering up Noah, Japheth's descendants are granted alliance
with
Shem in the subjugation of
The church fathers saw this as the first
sign of the grafting in
of
the Gentiles in spiritual blessings, but later revelation speaks
more
of that. All that can be said of Genesis 9:27 in the oracle is
that
peaceful tenting of Japheth with Shem was a step toward
that
further ideal blessing.
236
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
The Epilogue (Gen. 9:28-29)
The narrative, as well as the tOdl;OT, ends with verses 28 and
29
supplying the final note of the genealogy of Noah, the last name
on
the table of Genesis 5. A new tOdl;OT begins in
chapter 10.
The essential part of this narrative is
most certainly the
oracle,
and the dominant feature of that oracle is the cursing of
the
Canaanites.55 They are doomed
to perpetual slavery because
they
followed in the moral abandon of their distant ancestor.
Their
subjugation would be contrasted by the blessing on the
others:
Shem has spiritual blessings by virtue of knowing
Yahweh;
Japheth has temporal blessings with the prospect of
participation
with Shem.
The curse narrative of Genesis 9
immediately precedes the
listing
of the families and their descendants in Genesis 10; if
there
were any question as to whom the narrator had in mind, the
lines
could be traced immediately.
Japheth, whose expansion was already
anticipated in the
oracle,
represented the people who dominated the great northern
frontier
from the Aegean Sea to the highlands of
ward
to the steppes beyond the shores of the
best
known to the writer were the Hellenic peoples of the
coastlands.57
Shem also is pictured as expanding,
dwelling in tents. The
oracle
looks beyond the ancestor to his descendants, among
whom
were the Hebrews. It would be difficult to understand the
narrator's
assuming Yahweh to be covenanted with any other
people.
The possession of the blessing would be at the expense of
the
Canaanites whom
the
oracle.
considered
to be ethnically related to the other Hamites, but
were
singled
out for judgment because of their perverse activities. The
curse
announced that they would be enslaved by other tribes, a
subjugation
normally accomplished through warfare.
On the whole, this brief passage
expresses the recoiling of
Israelite
morality at the licentious habits engendered by a civiliza-
tion that through
the enjoyment and abuse of wine had deterior-
ated into an
orgiastic people to whom nothing was sacred. In
telling
the story, the writer stigmatizes the distasteful practices of
these
pagans.58
Being enslaved by their vices, the
Canaanites were to be
enslaved
by others. This subjugation, effected through divine
intervention,
is just: the moral abandon of Ham ran its course in
his
descendants.
It is not possible to take the oracle as
an etiology, answering
the
questions as to why the Canaanites had sunk so low, or why
they
were enslaved by others.59 At
no time in the history of
was
there a complete subjugation of
conquered,
and at times Canaanites were enslaved, but
failed
to accomplish her task. These Canaanites survived until
the
final colony at
Romans.
So there was really no time in the history of
retrospective
view demanded by an etiology.
Rather, the oracle states a futuristic
view in broad, general
terms.
It is a sweeping oracle announcing in part and imprecat-
ing in part the fate of the families
descending from these indi-
viduals. It is broad
enough to include massive migrations of
people
in the second millennium as well as individual wars and
later
subjugations.
The intended realization, according to
the design of the writ-
er, would be the period of the
conquest.
conquer
the Canaanites. At the same time as the Israelite wars
against
the Canaanites (down through the battle of Taanach),
waves
of Sea Peoples began to sweep through the land against the
Hittites,
Canaanites, and Egyptians. Neiman states, "The Greeks
and
the Israelites, willy-nilly, were allies against the Canaanites
and
the Hittites during the great world conflict which came down
through
the historical memory of many peoples by many different
names."60
In their invasions these people from the
north sought to
annex
the coastland territory and make homes for themselves.
ites (as Shem had
felt to Ham). Any help from the Japhethites
would
be welcomed. Such a spirit of tolerance toward the Gentiles
would
not have been possible in the later period of
Thus
the curse oracle would have originated at a time before the
Conquest,
when the Canaanites were still formidable enemies.
In all probability the event and its
oracle were recorded to
remind
the Israelites of the nature and origin of the Canaanites,
to
warn them about such abominations, and to justify their
subjugation
and dispossession through holy warfare.
ceived the blessing,
but
238
Bibliotheca Sacra -
July-September 1980
Notes
1
John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures, 25 vols., vol. 1:
Genesis
(reprint ed.,
2
Arthur C. Custance attempts to classify the
characteristics of the major races
in
connection with this oracle (Noah's Three
Sons [
Publishing
House, 1975], p. 43). It seems to this writer that much of the discus-
sion goes beyond the
evidence.
3
The second oracle in Genesis based on the character traits of sons comes at the
end
of the patriarchal material (Gen. 49).
4
David Neiman, "The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of
Biblical Motifs, ed. Alexander Altmann (
1966),
p. 125.
5
Umberto Cassuto, From
Noah to Abraham (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964),
p.
149.
6
Robert Brow, "The Curse of Ham - Capsule of Ancient History," Christianity
Today, October 26,
1973, p. 10.
7
Gerhardus Vos, Old and New Testament Biblical Theology
(
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 35.
8
August Dillmann, Genesis,
2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 1:302;
John
Skinner, Genesis, International Critical Commentary (
9
B. Jacob, The First Book of the Bible,
Genesis (
House,
1974), p. 68.
10
Skinner, Genesis, p. 181.
11
Clyde T. Francisco, "The Curse on
1964,
p. 8.
12
Rabbi Abraham Ben Isaiah and Rabbi Benjamin Sharfmen,
The Pentateuch
and Rashi's Commentary: Genesis (New York: S.
S. and R. Publishing Co., 1949),
p.
84.
13
The terms used in the passage reflect the description in Genesis 3.
14
Christ's first sign (John 2), changing water to wine, announces the age to
come.
15
Sanhedrin 108a, 70a and b.
16
Isaiah and Sharfmen, Genesis, p'. 85.
17
H. C. Leupold presents Noah as the seasoned man of
God brought down by a
simple
temptation (Exposition of Genesis, 2
vols. [
House,
1942], 1:345).
18
Gerhard vein Rad, Genesis
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 133.
See
also Skinner, Genesis, p. 183.
19
Zohar, 1:248.
20
D. C. Allen The Legend of Noah
(Urbana, IL: Mini Books, 1963), p. 73.
21
This view was proposed by Origen and Chrysostom earlier.
22
H. H. Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah
(
Press,
1974), pp. 3-8.
23
Cassuto, From
Noah to Abraham, p. 160.
24
Gene Rice, "The Curse That Never Was (Genesis 9:18-27)," Journal of Reli-
gious Thought 29 (1972): 5-6.
25
Thomas O. Figart, A
Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem (Grand
Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1973), pp. 55-58.
26
J. Ernest Shufelt, "Noah's Curse and Blessing,
Gen. 9:18-27," Concordia
Theological
Journal
17 (1946) :739.
27
The Torah found the account repulsive, Israelite conscience found it shock-
ing, and it was not right to
attribute such an act to Noah (Cassuto, From Noah to
Abraham, pp. 1.50-52).
28
According to Philo Byblius, a legend among the
Canaanites said El Kronos
used
a knife to prevent his father from begetting children.
29
Sanhedrin 70a. The Midrash here also tries to explain
the problem by saying
that
a lion took a swipe at Noah on leaving the ark and destroyed him sexually, and
that
Ham discovered it.
30
F. W. Bassett, "Noah's Nakedness and the Curse on
Incest?"
Vetus Testamentum
21 (1971) :232.
31
Rice, "The Curse That Never Was," p. 12.
32
Francisco, "The Curse on
33
John A. Bailey, "Initiation and the Primal Woman in Gilgamesh and Genesis
2-3," Journal
of Biblical Literature 89 (1970) :149.
34
Cassuto, From
Noah to Abraham, p. 151.
35
Calvin wrote, "Ham alone eagerly seizes the occasion of ridiculing and in-
veighing against his
father; just as perverse men are wont to catch at occasions of
offence
in others, which may serve as a pretext for indulgence in sin" (Commen-
taries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, 2
vols. [
Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
19481, 1:302).
36
Kidner sees this as the reverse of the fifth
commandment, which makes the
national
destiny pivot on the same point - a call to uphold God's delegated
authority
(Derek Kidner, Genesis
[Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967], p. 103).
37
This idea of "seeing the nakedness" as a gross violation of honor is
also related
by
Herodotus in the story of Gyges, who when seeing the
nakedness of Candaules'
wife
- which Herodotus said was a shame among the Lydians
- either had to kill
Candaules or be killed
himself (Herodotus 1:8).
38
It seems to this writer that the listing of "Shem, Ham and Japheth"
is not
chronological.
According to Genesis 9:24 Ham is the youngest of the three, and
according
to 10:21 Shem is the older brother of Japheth. So the proper order
would
be Shem, Japheth, and Ham. (However, the New International Version's
translation
of 10:21 suggests that Japheth was the older brother of Shem, in
which
case the order would be Japheth, Shem, and Ham. But either way Ham is
still
the youngest.)
39
Jacob, Genesis, p. 68.
40
Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, s.v. by Josef Scharbert,
1:408-12.
41
Herbert Chanan Brichto, The
Problem of "Curse" in the
Hebrew Bible
(Philadelphia:
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1963), p. 217.
42
In Scripture the "word" is seen as the cosmic power of the Creator
God (Walter
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament [
1:173;
2:69).
43
Brichto, The Problem of "Curse," p. 217.
44
Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Slaves of God,"
Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological
Society 9 (1966)
:36-39.
45
Jacob, Genesis, p. 68. In Genesis 27
the patriarch Jacob could not change
the
blessing he had given.
46
Kidner, Genesis,
p. 104.
47
Dillmann, Genesis,
p. 305.
48
John Bright, A History of
49
George E. Wright and Floyd V. Filson, The
Bible (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1945), p. 36.
50
William F. Albright, From the Stone Age
to Christianity (
Doubleday
& Co., 1964), p. 214.
51
Cassuto, From
Noah to Abraham, p. 154.
52
Skinner, Genesis, p. 185.
53
F. Delitzsch, A
New Commentary on Genesis (
1888),
p. 296.
240
Bibliotheca Sacra
- July-September 1980
54
Von Rad, Genesis,
p. 133.
55
For a brief discussion of the use of tents, see John P. Brown, "Peace Sym-
bolism in Ancient
Military Vocabulary," Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971): 20-23. J.
Hoftijzer presents the
view that it represents forcible dispossession of someone as,
for
example, in 1 Chronicles 5:10; Job 11:14; 18:15; and Psalm 78:55 ("Some
Remarks
to the Table of Noah's Drunkenness," Old
Testament Studies 1211958]:
22-27).
56
Figart correctly affirms that "there is not one
archaeologist, anthropologist,
or
Biblical scholar who has ever associated the Canaanites with Negroid stock.
with
no Negro characteristics" (A
Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem, p. 55).
57
Neiman, "The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of
58
Speiser, Genesis,
p. 63.
59
Herman Gunkel, Genesis
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1902),
p.
70.
60
Neiman, "The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of
:
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium