v.18-19The purpose of this account in Genesis is to portray the characteristics of the three
branches of the human race in relation to blessing and cursing. In Noah’s pronouncements, he discerned the
traits of his sons and, in a moment of insight, determined the attributes of their descendants as embodied in their
personalities (cf. 49:1-28 for a parallel event).
These sons were primogenitors (forefathers) of the families of the earth. The
beginning of the story (v.19) indicates to us that this event should be related to the tribes and nations descending
from the sons of Noah, rather than to their immediate family.Within this framework, there is an emphasis on the Canaanites (cf.
v.18), who eventual became the enemies of God and His chosen people.
v.20-21 Noah is described as an “husbandman” or a “man of the soil” who planted a vineyard.
There does not seem to be a problem with planting a vineyard – the vine in the Bible is considered noble (cf. Ps. 104:15; Jud. 9:13) and it also formed the symbol of the coming bliss in the Messianic
age (cf. Zech. 8:12; Is. 25:6). However, the Old Testament
clearly warns of the moral dangers connected with the use of wine (cf. Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:2-4; Prov. 31:4-5) and the story of Noah shows two degrading effects of the abuse of wine – drunkenness and
nakedness. Although the use of wine may not have been prohibited, drunkenness and nakedness that resulted
from its abuse was never excused. The beginning of wine and its effects on humans reported by Genesis contained
all the trappings of depravity. Cursing and slavery, rather than festive joy proceeded from its introduction
into the world.
v.22 Noah’s behaviour prompted the violation
by Ham, who is once again identified as “the father of Canaan”.
There is no evidence that Ham did anything else besides looking upon the nakedness of his father. It may
be difficult for readers in the modern and permissive culture of today to understand and appreciate the modesty
and discretion of privacy called for in ancient morality. Nakedness in Old Testament was from the beginning
a thing of shame for fallen humankind.To Adam and Eve as sinners, the state of nakedness was both undignified
and vulnerable (cf. 3:7, 10).The covering was a sound instinct that provided a boundary for fallen
human relations. The priest who ministered in the holy places before God had to wear “linen breeches to cover their nakedness” (Ex. 28:42-43) lest they die. To be exposed meant to be unprotected; to
see someone uncovered was to bring dishonour and to gain advantage for potential exploitation.
It was therefore the disgusting thing for Ham to enter and see his father’s nakedness. Ham’s errant looking
was a moral flaw (cf. 19:26;
1 Sam. 6:19) – a violation
of a boundary – which represented the first step in the abandonment of the moral code of the ancient days.
Ham’s going out to inform his brothers about it without taking any steps to remedy the situation personally is
equally telling of his moral abandonment (i.e. a departure from what is
right towards the questionable and wrong).
v.23 In direct contrast to Ham,
Shem and Japheth acted to preserve the honour of their father by covering him with the garment. The details
were drawn out in the description of how Shem and Japheth covered their father to highlight the two brother’s sensitivity
and piety. The important point was that the two brothers took great trouble and care so that they “saw
not their father’s nakedness”. While the exact details of the moral code
in the cultural context of our day may differ from Noah’s day, any willful violation of a known boundary reveals
a dangerous attitude of moral abandonment (cf. James
4:17).
v.24-25 That Noah proceeded to curse Canaan
after he knew what his younger son did demonstrates Ham’s actions to be a severe violation. A curse was a
means of seeing that the will of the Lord was executed in divine judgement on anyone profaning what is sacred.
It was an expression of faith in the just rule of God, for one who cursed had no other resource, except the Lord
to bring it to pass (cf. Deut. 28; Josh. 6:26;
1 Sam. 26:19).
The words had no power in themselves and the Bible has no magical ideas such as sorcery and divination (cf. Ex. 22:18).
The abject slavery of Canaan, the son of Ham, is the curse. The Pentateuch does incorporate judgement from
one generation to another (cf. Ex. 20:5) but in such cases the one judged deserves to be punished – “of
them that hate me”. In other words a later generation (in this case, Canaan) may
be judged for the sin of an ancestor (Ham) if they are of like mind and deed. Otherwise, they
may simply bear the fruit of some ancestor’s sin (cf. Josh.
9:27).Noah anticipated in the descendants of Canaan the evil traits that marked Ham.
In other words, Noah’s curse on Canaan was a prophetic announcement concerning the future of the Canaanites – everything
the Canaanites did in their pagan existence was symbolised by the attitude of moral abandonment displayed in Ham
(cf. 13:13; 15:16; 18:20-21; chapters 19 & 38). In fact, Leviticus 18 warned the Israelites against the
wickedness of the Canaanites with words (“nakedness”
and “uncover”) that recalls the violation of Ham.
The extended listing of vile practices of the Canaanites shows them to be a people enslaved sexually. The
Canaanites had advanced far beyond the sin of their ancestor, Ham, and they are not cursed because of what Ham
did but because they acted in full development of the same spirit of moral abandonment.
v.26The blessing was given to Shem in the
form “Blessed be the LORD God of Shem...”
For the first time in the Bible, God is called the God of a particular individual, or the larger group that emerges
from that individual. The message then is that Shem’s good fortune is to be ascribed to the LORD, for his
blessing would be, and would flow from his relationship to the Lord. It is also prophetic in anticipation
of his descendants, the nation of Israel, who will inherit the blessing as they enter into a personal covenantal
relationship with the Lord. The nation of Israel would know that it is not their might but God who blesses
them, which subjugated the Canaanites to them.
The concept of a covenant (or, testament) with God brings out into clearer light the desire of God to have a personal
relationship with man. The God we worship is not a distant God, nor an temperamental Deity, but One who wants
to have an intimate fellowship with us, and is willing to bind Himself to an agreement with us, in order to bless
us. As Christians, we have also entered into a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ our LORD (Matt. 26:28) so that we can enjoy a personal
relationship with God (Jn. 17:3,
2 Co. 5:18). We must
remember that God’s blessings upon our lives is because of our relationship with Him through Christ (cf. 2 Cor 3:4;
Gal. 4:7; Eph. 2:7; Phil.
4:7; 4:13), and would likewise flow from our relationship with God in Christ (Ro. 8:2; 1 Co. 15:22; 2 Co. 2:14; Eph. 1:3). There is no real and permanent place of blessing independent of the LORD God.
v.27 The blessing on Japheth (whose name
means “enlargement”) was that he be “enlarged”, which means his descendants would inhabit much of the
earth and would prosper.The main difficulty lies in interpreting the “he” in this verse. If “he” refers to Japheth, then Noah’s prophecy is the ingathering
of Gentiles to the fold of God’s people (cf. Ro. 11). But if “he” refers to God Himself, the prophecy is a further narrowing of the family line through which God’s plan
of redemption and word of promise (3:15) is transmitted. In other words, this is a Messianic prophecy whereby
God is revealing that He (“God with us”) would come through the line
of Shem. Both interpretations are possible but in view of the subsequent developments (i.e. thecall of Abraham, the birth of Isaac, the
blessing of Jacob, and the prophecy on Judah), it seems more probable that God is identifying for us the Messianic line.
v.28-29 The death of Noah, the “heir of righteousness” (Heb. 11:7), reminds us that the saviour of our human race is himself subjected
to death.The curse of death continues to reign and the world awaits the Saviour
who “liveth, and was dead; and…am alive for evermore”(Rev. 1:18) to save us to the uttermost
(Heb. 7:25).