'Cursed be Canaan'.

Splendour

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”


Anyone here got an explanation as to why Noah curses Canaan instead of Ham. Seems very unfair of Noah to punish Canaan for his father's sin.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

Anyone here got an explanation as to why Noah curses Canaan instead of Ham. Seems very unfair of Noah to punish Canaan for his father's sin.

Some what consistent though

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Ezekiel 18 says that the son will not be punished for the father's sins and the father for the son's sins, so perhaps this notion of punishing the son for the sins of the father applied in more ancient times than modern.

gimmebroadband

Leviticus 18:7

Douay-Rheims Bible
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

Morbert

Well Noah was by no means innocent either.

Ephesians 5:18
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.

But do Christians believe this actually happened? "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth" doesn't sound like a measured response, even from someone back then.

lmaopml

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

I think this part is explaining something about the Canaanites. Otherwise why mention Canaan? ..and go on to explain the 'people' who are scattered and whom their human fathers are...? This sets the tone for the events that follow...


20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.

Some maintain that this passage echoes the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for mankind. Others maintain that 'uncovered' could refer to Noah's wife herself and something happened ( obviously ) that was obscene, and a power struggle that Ham engaged in, using Noahs wife, his mother.....Yet others maintain that Noah himself lay in his tent and was naked or maybe he was just exposed and didn't know it...(which I think is more likely ) but I'm no expert...and lol...I wasn't there either, so I'm only winging it.

22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.

Yet again we are reminded that Canaan is Hams son, so we go back to the verse 18 and 19, and are reminded that a 'people' sprang up from Father and son etc. We're also told that Ham decided to look on, do nothing, and tell his brothers like it was no biggy what he had witnessed and continued to bear witness about, have a laugh as such. Why does scripture repeat about Canaan being Ham's son?.....because it is explaining 'more' about what the Canaanites (the people) that sprang up from Ham are like - they don't have the modesty that the Jews did. They were more sexually immoral, the giveaway is that Ham did nothing - he thought it was ok to laugh because he and his people were used to being that way and he decided not to honour his father at a weak moment in order to demonstrate and use him in some kind of power struggle between father, son, and brothers...(peoples)



23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

I think what is emphasised most here is the sharp contrast between the brothers way of dealing with this 'episode' and behind that too remembering their people...who had the same traits. Even to the point of demonstrating that they actually walked in backwards and turned their heads. They were honouring their own modesty and their fathers.



24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

Again, I think this illustrates the opening passage and what we are meant to understand by the repition of Canaan being Ham's son - and the 'people' they represented. Canaan, and the Canaanites inherited Ham's immodesty and irreverance for themselves and their father - in sharp contrast to the other sons who's modesty and love for their father meant that they were respectful of poor Noah who happened to be asleep after a glass few many and became the object of his youngest sons mirth and also his descendants, because Ham was kind of going around mouthing to his brothers and most likely we're meant to understand that he thought this was ok to do with anybody.
Noah would have known about the Canaanites, prior to having it confirmed by their Father, his youngest son, when he awoke to find his son had so little modesty and voyeurism overshadowed dignity.


Possibly some of the others could expand a little more on this for you Splendour. Wolfe and PDN seem to have great knowledge of the history etc. etc. Anyway, my 2c. Hope it helps.

wolfsbane

Splendour wrote: »

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”


Anyone here got an explanation as to why Noah curses Canaan instead of Ham. Seems very unfair of Noah to punish Canaan for his father's sin.

Generational curses are part of God's discipline of mankind. The sins of the fathers can be visited upon their sons for several generations. At other times, immediate judgement comes.

Wicknight points out an apparent contradiction:
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
But it is merely a correction to the self-justifying ideas of the later generation. They thought they were not responsible for the calamities coming upon them, it was the sins of their forefathers only. God is making clear it is their own sins that bring judgement, that a repentant generation will not suffer for the forefather's sins.

How does that square with generational curses? In generational curses, the succeeding generations are given over to their own sins - and the consequences. Canaan's seed would be vile men, and would face the consequences of their own sin - and in being so, a judgement was being carried out on sinful Ham. But God would reserve a better future for the sons of Shem and Japheth. Not each individual in the line, but generally. Some of the descendants of Canaan would become faithful servants of God; some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth would perish in their own sins.

***********************************************************************
Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Zombrex

Just to clarify, are you saying even when God punishes sons for the sins of the fathers, he is actually punishing them for their own sins?

Would you accept Splendor's notion that punishing the son for the sins of the father independently to anything the son did, is inherently unfair and not what God, or a righteous man like Noah, would do?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Just to clarify, are you saying even when God punishes sons for the sins of the fathers, he is actually punishing them for their own sins?

Yes, in that He has given them over to the evil ways of their fathers. The sons bear the punishment for their own sins, but God allowing them to go down into those sins is also the punishment inflicted on the fathers.

Another example: King David:
2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, before the sun.’”

Would you accept Splendor's notion that punishing the son for the sins of the father independently to anything the son did, is inherently unfair and not what God, or a righteous man like Noah, would do?

Yes.

Two caveats:
1. National sins bring judgement on the whole nation at times. The good may suffer along with the evil, for being a member of an evil nation.

2. Consequences may also fall on the children for their father's sin, but not be a judgement on the child. David's adultery with Bathsheba resulted in the birth of a son - then God caused the child to sicken and die as part of David's punishment.

********************************************************************
2 Samuel 12:13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”
And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” 15 Then Nathan departed to his house.

And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child, and David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 So the elders of his house arose and went to him, to raise him up from the ground. But he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 Then on the seventh day it came to pass that the child died...