A Study of the Curse of Canaan Genesis 9:20-28

1. A Study of the Curse of CanaanGenesis 9:20-28 • Noah began to farm the soil, planted a vineyard, got drunk on the wine, and lay uncovered in his tent (9:20-21). • Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside (9:22).

2. Shem and Japheth placed a garment upon their shoulders together and backed up and covered the nakedness of their father (9:23). • The curse of Canaan (9:25). • The blessing of Shem and Japheth (9:26-27).

3. The primary purpose of this passage is to tell of the prophecy that was made on this occasion. • Elements of the prophecy: • Canaan would be a servant of servants unto his brethren (9:25). • Shem would be elevated above Canaan because Canaan would be his servant (9:26b). • Japheth would share the tents of Shem.

4. Meaning of the prophecy. • The Canaanites would inhabit the land of Canaan, but then it would be given into the hands of the Jews, the descendants of Abraham (Gen. 12:7). • The Canaanites would become the servants of the Jews.

5. God’s dealings with the Jews in the Old Testament excluded the Gentiles, the descendants of Japheth. • But in the day of the Messiah, the Gentiles would share the blessings of Shem because the gospel would be preached to all the nations (Isa. 49:6; 2:2-4; 11:10, 12; Matt. 28:18-20).

6. The contrast between the sin of Noah and the sin of Ham. • There is nothing specific stated in the passage to show that God disapproved of what Noah did. • The fact is that the mere account of Noah’s deed was sufficient in the society in which he lived to show that this was a very shameful episode in his life.

7. There are many, many passages that condemn drunkenness, so that a story in which drunkenness is mentioned in a neutral manner cannot be forced to say that God did not disapprove of drunkenness, just because He did not specifically condemn it in this context.

8. Ham. • Whatever the sin of Ham was, it was treated as a much more serious sin than Noah’s. • Noah’s sin involved a weakness of the flesh.

9. Ham’s sin involved a sin against the order of things. • A person might in a moment of weakness commit a sin of the flesh, but a person whose attitude is improper toward the order of things is one who is going to live a life of rebellion, and his attitude will lead him into disobedience. • The difference in these two is also illustrated in the behavior of Saul and David.

10. In other words, Ham violated the relationship of respect that a son should show a father. • A son who shows such a lack of respect to a father will also show a similar lack of respect for law, and for God. • This sin is more fundamental and far-reaching.

11. The curse. • Note that the curse was not: “Cursed be Ham,” but “Cursed be Canaan” (9:25). • Ham had other descendants besides Canaan: Cush, Mizraim, and Put (10:6). • And from these three sons came very many tribes and peoples (10:7-14).

12. The displeasure of God was shown to Ham by telling him of the disaster that awaited the descendants of Canaan. • We must be careful not to inject ideas of pronouncing a curse upon someone through magic incantation into this story. • Such concepts are quite common in pagan societies, as is reflected in a great deal of English mythology. • Such a “placing a curse” was what Balak wanted Balaam to do in Numbers 22-24.

13. A curse was viewed as the separation of one from his loved ones or his society. • A curse also consisted of whatever disasters came upon a person, city, or country. • Such a curse was pronounced as rebuke or punishment. Thus the person “cursed” deserved what they got.

14. I believe that the basic outline of the prophecy regarding what happened to Canaan and to Shem and Japheth would have happened anyway because the prophecy is a broad outline of the scheme of redemption. • But the telling of the disaster that would befall Canaan’s descendants was a rebuke to Ham, and an indication of God’s displeasure.

15. As we read a story such as this one, we may question why God did not come down really hard on Noah for his drunkenness, and did come down so hard on Ham for what he did. • In doing so, we are making the judgment that what Noah did was a lot worse than what Ham did, and we are setting up our judgment above the judgment of God.

16. Or we can say, obviously God considered the sin of Ham greater than the sin of Noah. Now let me understand why. • My place is not to evaluate whether God did the right thing or not in any given event, but to understand what His thinking was in what He did.

17. Conclusion: • This story is important in the Bible record because of the prophecy it contains of the future of the plan of redemption. • Secondary, but still important, is what the sin of Ham involved.

18. We must always remember to focus on the things that God is emphasizing rather than on the things He is not. • And we must be careful not to draw unwarranted conclusions.