Let’s take a break from the YEC delusion, even though I am on the opposite side with the YEC on this too. What else is new. 😂
Genesis 9:25 (ESV) “he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
The problem with this curse by Noah is that he is cursing someone who did not commit the sin. Whatever Ham did, it was Ham who sinned, Canaan was innocent of any wrongdoing. It does not seem just or fair to curse the son for the sin of the father.
Let’s get one thing straight from the onset, what did Ham do that was so bad and it warranted Noah’s curse. He saw his father naked and went and told his brothers.
Genesis 9:22 (ESV) “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.”
And then Noah found out that Ham saw his nakedness and didn’t cover him up. He cursed his grandson, who had nothing to do with this whole incident.
Everyone who reads this seems to think this is unfair. Punishing an innocent person for someone else’s wrongdoing. I know they think this because everyone starts to speculate and find excuses to justify Noah’s action. Let’s take a beat. I think we need to start from the source. Was Noah justify to even curse Ham let alone Canaan?
Was Noah justified to curse Canaan? The answer to that is simple, either he is right or he is wrong. Most if not all Christians will instinctively jump to Noah’s defense. They will immediately assume Ham did something wrong and find reasons to justify the cursing of Canaan for his father’s wrongdoing. Why? Because we know how bad Canaan’s descendants were, so Noah was actually prophesying about Canaan’s future descendants will be. This is a stretch to say the least. If Noah was making a prophecy of the future, it still doesn’t address anything about his anger with Ham. There are even less credible excuses to justify Noah’s action, which I will forgo.
Why must we assume Noah was right in his curse? Because he was righteous before the flood, and God saved him? That gives him a free pass for the rest of his life, so he can do no wrong? I don’t think so. If we are going to speculate on the text. I say Noah was wrong to curse Canaan. The Bible said he became a farmer, a man of the soil. I would agree that is a noble profession. Some liken that to Adam who also worked the soil. But he planted a vineyard to make wine. A vineyard may or may not be a bad thing, out of all the stuff you can plant after the flood and if you like grapes. But to make wine? I don’t think that was very smart and a righteous man should do. It’s like, yes I am a farmer. What do you farm? Marijuana. Really? Would we think that is a good thing? But besides making the wine he drank so much that he got himself naked and passed out. And when he wakes up from his stupor instead of realizing his own sin, he cursed his grandson because Ham embarrassed him by seeing his weakness. I think that is a much more straightforward understanding of the text.
Furthermore, God does not punish the son for the father’s sin nor the father for the son’s sin. Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
There is no way that God would think Noah is justify in cursing Canaan for Ham’s wrongdoing even if Ham was wrong.
So the other side of the argument is that Noah was justify in cursing Canaan for Ham’s wrongdoing. Well, what did Ham do that was wrong. As stated in v.22 “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.”
Is the fact that seeing nakedness sufficient to warrant being cursed? Probably not. But seeing the nakedness of his father and not covering him and telling others? Maybe. The Bible does talk about seeing nakedness but that is not sufficient to warrant being curse. Isaiah 58:7 (ESV) “Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”
And many of these nakedness and cover passages has to do with charity. The nakedness is the result of being poor and the cover is the act of helping the poor. That doesn’t seem to apply in this case.
If we want to justify Noah’s action we have to read into the text a little bit more than what is written. Like I said in the beginning of this post, there are a lot of incredulous excuses to justify Noah’s action. Here is one I found that seems to be the most reasonable, we have to metaphorize the text a little bit.
Leviticus 20:11 (ESV) “If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
Deuteronomy 27:20 (ESV) “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s nakedness.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”
Ham committed incest while his father was drunk. Canaan was the offspring of Ham and his mother. If that is the case then Noah was justify to curse Canaan. Just as the child that resulted from David and Bathsheba’s adultery had died. It is a bit of a stretch because there is a physical and metaphorical component to the meaning of nakedness.
I know I said there are two option but there is a third. The third option is that both Noah and Ham were wrong. Noah should not have cursed Canaan but Ham was wrong to not cover his father’s nakedness. It is obvious why Noah is wrong cursing an innocent person for the wrong of someone else. How was Ham wrong?
Exodus 20:12 (ESV) “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”
Ham seeing his father naked as a result of Noah’s drunken bad behavior and growing grapes just to make wine. He did not honor and disrespected him and instead of covering him. He went and complain about it to his brothers. If I were to imagine that conversation. Ham would have said something like “Dudes, you see our old man? The old fool got himself drunk and passed out. He looks ridiculous. I told him we should be growing grass for the cattle and grain for our food. But nooo, he wanted to indulge in pleasuring himself with wine.”
By showing contempt for his father’s action he dishonors him. In that sense they were both wrong.