Pentateuch Paper #1

    Looking for material: 8.7 hours
    Taking Notes: 7.05 hours
    Writing the Paper: 7.3 hours
    Typing your paper: 6.58 hours
    Total Time:     29.63 hours


    Noah’s Curse


      Introduction:
      Shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, this passage has been the center of much debate over the centuries. Why did God sovereignly choose to place this narrative in His divine revelation? What are the circumstances surrounding it? Was it wrong for Noah to get drunk? What are the different interpretations on this account? Let’s look at a few of these questions in the following pages.

      1. Why did Noah get drunk – was it sin?

      • Genesis 9:21 clearly states that Noah became inebriated because he “drank of the wine”, but it fails to give us a definitive answer as to exactly why he became drunk. A number of views have been advanced to try and fill in the gap in our understanding of this incident.
      • One possible view is that pre-flood conditions would not have been nearly as conducive to the fermentation process necessary for the making of wine, as it would have been after the flood. The pamphlet Why did Noah Get Drunk? states it this way, “The collapse of the vapor canopy surrounding antediluvian Earth's atmosphere caused the reduction of atmospheric pressure (and the partial pressure of oxygen dropped as well) more than twice. That certainly had an effect on alcoholic metabolism. So, alcoholic intoxication would have been at least a great surprise to Noah, if not the first such experience for all mankind.” There are also many corollaries to this view. For example, Kidner suggests that the word “began” in verse 20 “impl[ies] that only inexperience was to blame” William’s adds to this view by stating that “Botanists say the grapevine originated in Armenia, exactly where the ark landed." Another strong supporter is Adam Clarke. He states in his commentary on Genesis that, “It is very probable that this was the first time the vine was cultivated; and it is as probable that the strength or intoxicating power of the expressed juice was never before known” Keil & Delitzsch also add their voices to this side of the argument and believe that Noah became drunk through ignorance of what wine really was. Livingston is also persuaded in this direction.
      • There are, however, some contradictory views to this interpretation. Some, like Whitelaw, believe that the making of wine had probably been a common practice centuries before the incident found in verses 20-25. Bramer & Gangel in the Holman Old Testament Commentary also bring to light Matthew 24:38 which talks about “eating and drinking” before the flood which may imply that alcoholic drink was available in pre-flood generations, and, hence, Noah would have been aware of wine’s affects. Hughes adds to this view by saying, “But the reality is that Noah was not ignorant. He was over six hundred years old, and this event was some time after the flood because it takes years for a vineyard to produce … He was a seasoned man of the soil, and he knew what wine could do. He was no helpless victim.”
      • Another aspect of this event is its moral virtuousness. Was it sin? Was Noah wrong in what he did? Again, the Bible does not give us a definitive answer, and we must keep in mind what Kidner states, “Noah’s drunkenness is recounted without moral comment on his part of the scandal:” and as such, it is difficult to be dogmatic about any view. The views to this question are strongly tied and overlap many of the previous arguments. For example, Clarke builds on his previous argument that Noah became drunk through ignorance to propose that Noah was innocent, “Had Noah not been innocent, as my exposition supposes him to be, God would not have endued him with the spirit of prophecy on this occasion, and testified such marked disapprobation of their [Ham’s/Canaan’s] conduct." Williams believes that because Noah was ignorant of the affects of wine, he did not commit a sin, and, hence, “His act did not merit condemnation. Noah was still blameless.”
      Having said that, some hold to the view that Noah was sinning when he committed this deed. As stated in a previous argument, Hughes believes that “He [Noah] was no helpless victim.” and as such was guilty of sin. Mathew’s adds an interesting corollary to this concept by building a case on the silence of God after this event, “They [Noah’s curse/blessing] are in effect his last will and testament, for the subsequent verses report his death, bringing an end to the ancient Sethite lineage with the same fateful refrain, “then he died.” Conversely, in the flood narrative, the Lord forewarns, instructs, assures, blesses, and makes covenant with Noah; but in the final episode we do not hear a divine word. Although the passage does not condemn Noah’s intoxication, the abrupt silence of God suggests that all is not well between heaven and earth.”


        Conclusion:
        As I view the evidence as a whole, I see an event with two scenarios, and with two results. 1) If Noah, as some have proposed, did knowingly become intoxicated then several other factors must be taken into consideration. For example, bearing in mind the concept of progressive revelation, would Noah have had light on this subject by divine revelation? But if the theory that fermented wine existed before the flood, could he have known it was sin by watching the ungodly world around him? If either of these are true, then he most certainly committed a willful sin.

        • However, 2) if fermented wine did not exist before the flood, and Noah was completely unaware of it’s affect, then it would seem, in light of later revelation, that Noah would have committed a sin of ignorance, and that this kind of sin would need to be accounted for under the sacrificial system.


        2. What was the nature of Ham’s actions that brought about the curse?
        • There are six main interpretations of this incident. Bramer and Gangel state four of these views precisely in their commentary, so I will use their phrasing of each theory, and then build the arguments around each statement.
        1) “It was an act of incest between Ham and his mother.”
        The core of this argument is built around Leviticus 18:8 which states “The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it         is thy father’s nakedness” (underline added). Hamilton states this view plainly by saying, “Thus, to uncover the nakedness of one’s father is to have sexual intercourse with one’s mother.” Williams points out that if this concept were true, it would explain why Shem and Japheth “took a garment and laid it across their shoulders…walked backwards and covered their father’s nakedness”, because if that were the case, they would actually be covering up their naked mother who may or may not have been a willing partner in the incestuous act. Bramer & Gangel also comment that, “This interpretation sometimes suggests that Canaan was the result of this act of incest.”
        • But Hamilton points out two problems with the theory that Canaan was born from a supposed incestuous relationship between Ham and his mother.
        • First, Genesis 9:18 implies that Canaan was born before the incident occurred. Some, however, interpret it as the narrator adding this information afterwards, and did not intend it to be in chronological order.
        • Secondly, verses 24-25 indicate that as soon as Noah woke up he knew what his son had done, and he immediately pronounced a curse upon his grandson, Canaan. But if the incestuous theory were true it would mandate that Noah knew immediately that his wife was pregnant, and that a son would be born nine months later from the incestuous relationship between his wife and Ham.

         2) “It was an act of homosexuality between Ham and his father.”
        • The premise of this argument comes from the phrase “what his youngest son had done to him (Gen. 9:24).” being interpreted as a “physical act.”
        • The consensus among scholars, however, seems to be against this view. Take, for example, Mathews’ view, “Concerning a homosexual desire or act, there is no indication that a sexual indiscretion occurred when Ham viewed his father or that Ham desired his father in an illicit way. Levitical language for the homosexual act is “to lie with a male,” which we do not find here. “Saw” is the common term for observing and does not convey necessarily the idea of sexual lust; the term can be used in this way, but such meaning must be derived from the context and not the term itself. On the contrary, the expressions “to see nakedness” and “to uncover nakedness” are used of heterosexual actions, not homosexual encounters. … If in fact some lecherous deed occurred inside the tent, it is inexplicable [why] the covering of their father is in juxtaposition to Ham’s act. On other occasions Genesis is straightforward in its description of sexual misconduct. There is no reason to assume that homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexual misconduct would be described.” Hamilton concurs with Mathews on the point that in the context of the Levitical laws, the phrase “uncover the nakedness” always refers to a heterosexual relationship, never homosexual.
        • 3) “It was an act of castration.”
        • Bramer & Gangel bring out a little of the historical background of this view in their commentary by stating, “This view is found in the Talmud, a Jewish collection of rabbinical law, law decisions, and comments on the Laws of Moses. It is seen as a power struggle in the family.” One reason for the popularity of this view is found in the fact that the Bible does not mention Noah siring any further children. Mathews puts it this way, “Some support for this … view comes from ‘the absence of any notice that additional children were born to Noah, since all the other patriarchs are said to have had “other sons and daughters.’” Having said that, Mathews also recognizes that, “This lack of reference to other children, however, may be due to the author’s desire to parallel the Sethite and Shemite lines, which both end with three sons.”
        • 4) “It was a viewing (accidental or purposeful) in which Ham did not treat his father with respect because he spoke about his condition to his brothers.”
        • Whitelaw believes that Ham was “wickedly rejoicing in what he saw” and that was his sin. It was not that he inadvertently saw his father lying there naked, but that he rejoiced in seeing his father in this humiliating circumstance, and took sinful pleasure in it (non-physical, emotional pleasure). Whitelaw also believes that Ham had “a malicious purpose” in reporting the incident to his two older brothers, “possibly inviting them to come and look upon their father’s shame.” Clarke tends to follow this same line of thought and states, “Ham, and very probably his son Canaan, had treated their father on this occasion with contempt or reprehensible levity.” Atkinson defines the sin a little more closely by saying that the major wrong committed by Ham was probably not honoring his parents.

        Hamilton slightly varies on the point of Ham’s attitude toward the incident, but his premise is the same. He states, “We are on much safer ground in limiting Ham’s transgression simply to observing the exposure of the genitalia and failing to cover his naked father. Other wise, the other two brothers’ act of covering their father’s nakedness becomes incomprehensible.”

        • Two other views that do not have very much support are as follows: 1) “It was an act of trespassing by Ham into his father’s tent” 2) “It was an act in which Ham attempted to achieve authority over his father by “blackmailing him with his indecent exposure. Ham, in this view, desired to be head of the family.”

        Conclusion:
        I personally tend to hold to view number four stated above that it was Ham’s attitude or actions after he saw his father’s nakedness that was his sin. It seems to me that if I go beyond what the Bible clearly states, I am walking on ‘shaky ground’ and in danger of eisegesis. It also fits with all the other Biblical evidence that we are given.



          Historically, there has been much debate over this issue. This passage has, in fact, been extensively used to argue for a Biblical endorsement for the slavery of the black race. Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown state this by saying, “This doom [Noah’s curse] has been fulfilled in the destruction of the Canaanites – in the degradation of Egypt and the slavery of the Africans, the descendants of Ham” (underline added).

          But, Williams contradicts this view and states that, “Some have viewed the color of black people as evidence of the curse, and then find legitimacy for bigoted feelings. Such a view is a misunderstanding of the text. While Ham’s descendents did populate parts of Africa, he was not cursed; rather Canaan was. One cannot consider Canaanites to have been a black race, so skin color has nothing to do with this incident.” Haines further hones this point by stating, “In the nineteenth century much was made of the so-called curse of Ham, it being used as a Scriptural justification for the enslaving of Africans! This of course overlooked the fact that it was Canaan, not Ham who was cursed, and not by the wildest of interpretations can the Africans be said to be descendents of Canaan. Further, anthropologically considered, Negroids are not Hamitic.” Both Kidner and Mathews also support this view. The New Bible Dictionary also adds that, “A Hamitic “race” is not recognized by modern anthropological classifications.”

          There is also some confusion about exactly who was cursed, even though the text explicitly states that it was Canaan. A number of scholars, including Calvin, Wordsworth, Murphy, Kalisch, and Lange, believe, “That Noah foresaw that the Canaanites would abundantly deserve” the curse that was pronounced. So, in this view, it was the Canaanite people that were cursed for their future actions that God, in His foreknowledge, knew would be abominable. Clarke also holds this view, “The curse pronounced on Canaan neither fell immediately upon himself nor on his worthless father, but upon the Canaanites; and from the history we have of this people … we may ask, Could the curse fall more deservedly on any people than on these?”

          It is also sometimes argued that “Ham was actually the one being punished by having his youngest son Canaan bring shame to him just as he, the youngest son, brought shame to his father Noah.” Yet, even this view must rely upon the previous stated argument to allow for the fact that a son is being cursed for his father’s sin.

          It has also been suggested that the text originally read “Ham,” but was switched to “Canaan” later “in light of what happened to the Canaanites in Palestine under Joshua and David.”

          Conclusion:
          It seems to me that the evidence favoring the first view (a black skinned race) is torn to shreds by the latter evidence. Also, if you look at other sources, you will find a more comprehensible explanation for the origin of the black race. I also tend to lean toward the theory that the curse was placed on the Canaanite people as a whole because of the deplorable lifestyle they would lead in the future. So, I see it as a prophetic curse that was fulfilled by the Canaanite people’s plunge into depravity at a later date.


            There are several views as to exactly why Canaan was cursed, instead of Ham.
            1) “Canaan was the result of an incestuous act, and therefore the judgment fell on him.”
            Evidence for and against this argument has already been stated previously under point number 2, “What was the nature of Ham’s actions that brought about the curse?”

            2) “Canaan was present with his father when the act was committed”
            Evidence for this view comes from verse 22, which states, “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness.” “But this is an argument from silence except for this one brief comment that actually does not state that Canaan was present.”

            Another underlying reason for this view is trying to reconcile the curse upon Canaan with his seeming innocence. Origen believes that Canaan first saw Noah, and then went and told his father Ham. Another splinter of this view by Wordsworth, is that Canaan was an accomplice in whatever act it was that his father committed.

            3) “Canaan was punished for his father’s sin, but this would not be allowed later in the law (e.g., Deut. 24:16; Ezek. 18:4; but see Exod. 34:7).”
            This view does seem to have much support in the scholarly realm.

            4) “The name Canaan is used, but the text is actually speaking of Ham. But the curse would not fall on Ham’s descendents.”
            “There are some interpreters, however, who notice that Ham’s descendants become dwellers in Africa and because of prejudices desire that all of Ham’s descendents be made slaves.”

            5) “Ham was actually the one being punished by having his youngest son Canaan bring shame to him just as he, the youngest son, brought shame to his father Noah.”
            Gangel and Bramer defend this position by stating, “The reason the son can be cursed for the father is that Noah, by observation or revelation, knew that Canaan and his descendents would be even worse than Ham (Lev. 18:2-3), especially in sexual matters.” Kidner also lends his support for this view.
              Hamilton slightly alters this view by pointing out other examples in Scripture in which an innocent party suffers for the mistakes of the guilty. For example, the ground is cursed because of Adam’s sin, the animals die because of man’s sin, etc.

              Keil and Delitzsch, however, strongly disagree with this view. Mainly because it is not an established fact that Canaan               was the youngest son of Ham.

              6) Canaan was already following in his father’s footsteps, and this curse was a “prophetic oracle.”

              A couple of the arguments for why Noah cursed Canaan instead of Ham are:
              a) “Because Noah likely detected in Canaan the evil traits he had seen in his father. “Canaan was a bad apple who did not fall far from the tree. He was already walking in his father’s footsteps.”

              b) “This curse was a prophetic oracle."
              Keil & Delitasch believe that God foresaw the natural tendencies of the three sons as to which type of life they would lead, and hence, the tribes would lead, and God was placing a prophetic blessing and curse on the future tribes.

              Conclusion:
              I tend to hold the view that the curse was placed on Canaan because Noah knew, either by divine revelation, or through simple observation, that Canaan was headed down the wrong path, and thus placed a prophetic curse on him. This would allow for the fact that Canaan was not cursed for the sin of his father, but that he himself was already showing signs of regression into pre-flood actions.




              Bibliography

              References Used:
              Alferov, Golovin, and Pobersky. Why did Noah Get Drunk?. Creationsim.org. 1995. http://www.creationism.org/crimea/engl/al2.htm

              Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1-11 The Dawn of Creation. The Bible Speaks Today. Inter-Varsity Press. Leicester, England, 1990

              Bramer, Stephen J. & Gangel, Kenneth O. Genesis. Holman Old Testament Commentary. Broadman & Holman Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee, 2002

              Clarke, Adam.               Genesis. The Bethany Parallel Commentary. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1985

              Haines, Lee.               Genesis. The Wesleyan Bible Commentary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1967

              Hamilton, Victor P.               Genesis 1-17. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990

              -----------------------.               Handbook on the Pentateuch. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982

              Hughes, R. Kent.               Genesis. Preaching the Word. Crossway Books. Wheaton, Illinois, 2004

              Jamieson, Fausset, Brown. Genesis. The Bethany Parallel Commentary. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1985

              Keil & Delitzsch,               Genesis. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. Pentateuch. Hendrickson Publishers. Peabody, Massachusetts, 1996

              Kidner, Derek.               Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Inter-Varsity Press. Leicester, England, 1967

              Livingston, George H.               Genesis. Beacon Bible Commentary. Beacon Hill Press. Kansas City, Missouri, 1969

              Mathews, Kenneth.               Genesis 1-11:26. The New American Commentary. Vol. 1a. Broadman & Holdman Publishers. United States, 1995

              The New Bible Dictionary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1962

              Sailhamer, John.               Genesis. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 2 Zondervan Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990

              Williams, Wilbur G.               Genesis. A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Wesleyan Publishing House. Indianapolis, Indiana, 2000

              Whitelaw, Thomas.               Genesis. The Pulpit Commentary Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950

              References Read, But Not Used:
              Why did Noah curse Ham/Canaan?. (2007). Got Questions Ministries. http://www.gotquestions.org/curse-Ham-Canaan.html

              Henry, Matthew. Genesis. The Bethany Parallel Commentary. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1985

              Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nashville, Tennessee. 1986

              The Revell Bible Dictionary. Fleming H. Revell Company. Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1990

              Today’s Dictionary of the Bible. Guideposts. Carmel, New York, 1982

              Unger’s Bible Dictionary. Moody Press. Chicago, Illinois, 1981

              Curse of Ham. (2007, September 19). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 22:07, October 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curse_of_Ham&oldid=159043646