From Genesis chapter 9:
18 Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was populated.
20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. 21 And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." 26 He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. 27 "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."
In this passage we have some unusual things going on, to say the least!
OK.
The popular commentators, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, along with many others, have given absolutely no thought to this difficult passage:
"21. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken--perhaps at the festivities of the vintage season. This solitary stain on the character of so eminently pious a man must, it is believed, have been the result of age or inadvertency.
24. This incident could scarcely have happened till twenty years after the flood; for Canaan, whose conduct was more offensive than that even of his father, was not born till after that event. It is probable that there is a long interval included between these verses and that this prophecy, like that of Jacob on his sons, was not uttered till near the close of Noah's life when the prophetic spirit came upon him; this presumption is strengthened by the mention of his death immediately after."
Whoa! What did Canaan have to do with anything?
Unlike these teachings of men, the Bible doesn't mention that Canaan did anything.
If Ham did something wrong, whatever it may have been exactly, why would the penalty fall not on Ham but on Canaan? If you would answer that the sins of the father are visited upon the sons, I might agree with you except that there is no curse spoken on Ham. And Ham had other children, see Gen.10:6. Why wouldn't this curse be spoken against Ham alone, or at least Ham and all the children, if it were meant to be a penalty on Ham for his wrong-doing? Instead, only Canaan bears the curse.
Now, what exactly was the nature of Ham's offense? The passage seems to suggest that the offense was simply seeing Noah in the buff. Some commentators have suggested that there was more done than viewing, but that is mere speculation and not too pleasant to consider in any event. I'd rather keep to what the Bible actually says on the matter since it doesn't mince words on many occasions dealing with similar things. So, was it that he stole in secretly to spy or did he inadvertently find his father in this way? If the latter, this is surely not a cause for any one to get a curse, is it? Again, it doesn't say he was spying on his father so I would avoid saying that he was. It would seem from the account that the problem here was mere seeing.
Or was the problem telling? Perhaps Ham should have kept the matter to himself and clothed his father himself? Was the offense which visited a curse on Canaan simply Ham's "sin of omission"? Or did it really relate to spreading the word about it? Some commentators state that the former is the real offense. But I am inclined to say it was the latter. Let me tell you why.
As I mentioned above, the phrase "shame of nakedness" occurs throughout the Bible and the focus of the references is that one should avoid with dread being exposed to this particular humiliation. Thus, by simply viewing Noah there, Ham had injured Noah in a certain way. But by telling his brothers about it he surely expanded the shame brought upon his father. By not solving the problem, Ham may have allowed even greater shame to have occurred. The two older brothers took the responsibility to clear up the shame problem while being certain not to shame Noah themselves.
This much I am comfortable with saying. But I am still at a loss for what this has to do with Canaan. And since Noah's curse became God's eventually, it is not a small problem.
Furthermore, I am aware that these stories are not just for telling people not to get drunk and naked and not to go looking at naked people. Rather, they should contain some genuine spiritual principle which we could apply to our lives. Again, in Revelation, it is pretty clear that nakedness is a matter of spiritual condition rather than being without a pair of blue jeans. But I am at somewhat of a loss for how to properly allegorize the tale for spiritual instruction.
So, if any of you have some benefit of the Lord on the matters of the Biblical meaning of shame and spiritual nakedness, I would be eager to hear your fellowship.
Update:
I have since gained a little insight into the topic:
Do not be mistaken that Noah would have enjoyed to speak a curse like this. In fact, you need to see the whole context.
Noah has become drunk through the enjoyment of his success apart from God and this has left him naked, exposed before God. However, Noah was still the head of God's family on the earth and this is the crucial point. This passage touches the matter of God's government.
Noah was God's deputy authority and when Ham came in, he exposed this failure in his father and not only so but then expressed the failure to his brothers. It was not that Noah was right and that Ham was wrong, nor especailly that Canaan did anything at all. Rather, this passage shows that we must not seek to expose, even the truthful things, of those in the exercise of God's authority. This is not to allow gross sin in, but Noah's failure was truly small. Yet to speak against him was a grave matter, because he was God's so-called deputy authority.
Therefore, when Ham failed to take proper care for his father's failure, it was an even more grave failure.
[But in order to establish that it was a matter of God's governmental authority and not merely a punishment, the curse fell to the son of Ham, Canaan. - my addition.]
- Parapharased from the RealAudio broadcast of the Life-Study of Genesis by Witness Lee.
I, however, am not wholly convinced with this answer, although it certainly seems to be on the right track. First of all, why would Canaan be singled out among Ham's three sons? Secondly, wouldn't there be another way to express the governmental aspect on Ham, if that was the main concern here? Finally, even given that Noah's failure could go unpunished, the matter of justice is not to be easily dismissed: Ham did nothing serious and Canaan did nothing at all.
I think this is close. It is clearly closer than I have been able to express in words before now and is along the lines that the Lord was showing me. Still, we will need to see what the Lord will build upon brother Lee's shoulders.
Last updated Saturday, March 27, 2004.
