The Curse of Canaan

[smolemong]

This is something that I have been wondering about for some time. The question is at the end, it requires context.

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.
 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

My question is why was Noah's grandson, Canaan, the one who was made a servant of servants when it was his father, Ham, that offended?

[Kenneth Winslow]

My understanding is that Noah could not curse Ham because God had already blessed him:

Genesis 9:1 KJV — And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.


I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit more to this, but this is all I know for now.

[Rowan M.]

I don't have an immediate answer to this question, but it is interesting that Ham is specifically referred to as "the father of Canaan" in the verse that describes him seeing Noah's nakedness. There must be some particular reason why that is. Ham had four sons. Genesis 10:6 tells us that Ham's four sons were (presumably in order of birth, I think that's how Biblical genealogies normally work) Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. So Canaan was the baby of Ham's family. But he is singled out for special mention. Genesis 9:18 is rather interesting in this respect too:

And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

So even though Ham had those four sons, there is great emphasis on him being the father of Canaan. And none of the other three sons were cursed by Noah - only Canaan. Kenneth may be right about God having already blessed Ham, but then why would Noah curse Canaan in particular, and not one or even all of Ham's other sons?

Having said that, maybe there's a reason why God didn't explain this in greater detail. There are still some salutary lessons to be taken from this passage, in particular about the dangers of drunkenness and how it can have a lasting negative impact on a family. Perhaps one purpose was simply to explain why Canaan was a corrupt nation from the outset. Also, in addition to being a curse, it was a prophecy, because Canaan ended up being conquered by Israel when God judged it for its sins. It is perhaps appropriate that the curse was based on some sort of lewd conduct, because Canaan became one of the most morally depraved nations, if not THE most depraved, in the ancient world. After all, Sodom and Gomorrah were located there. Even by the standards of the present day, Canaan was incredibly wicked. As evil as the world is right now, there are still some sexual sins (like incest and bestiality) that are frowned upon. No doubt there are people committing them, but they're still considered crimes. Unlike homosexuality, which is "socially acceptable", most people still find incest and bestiality abhorrent (and rightly so). But Canaan embraced them. Leviticus 18 gives us a long list of forbidden sexual practices (also outlawing child sacrifice), and just before that, God singles out Canaan for special mention:

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. (Leviticus 18:3)

Then in Verse 24 of that chapter, we read:

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you

So everything that was prohibited in Leviticus 18, Canaan was doing. And all that corruption and defilement began with the incident of Noah's drunkenness and subsequent curse on Canaan. That was the root of it all. And perhaps that's the main point. After all, Genesis is the book of origins, and this is the origin of Canaan being such a wicked nation.

[anvilhauler]

of the present day, Canaan was incredibly wicked. As evil as the world is right now, there are still some sexual sins (like incest and bestiality) that are frowned upon. No doubt there are people committing them, but they're still considered crimes. Unlike homosexuality, which is "socially acceptable", most people still find incest and bestiality abhorrent (and rightly so). But Canaan embraced them. Leviticus 18 gives us a long list of forbidden sexual practices (also outlawing child sacrifice), and just before that, God singles out Canaan for special mention:

Do you think perhaps you had the answer there.  If Ham defiled his father and his mother by having sexual relations with his mother and Canaan was the offspring.  That still makes Canaan to be one of Ham's children.

Noah's wife's is also Noah's nakedness.

Leviticus 18 Authorized (King James) Version
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

[Rowan M.]

of the present day, Canaan was incredibly wicked. As evil as the world is right now, there are still some sexual sins (like incest and bestiality) that are frowned upon. No doubt there are people committing them, but they're still considered crimes. Unlike homosexuality, which is "socially acceptable", most people still find incest and bestiality abhorrent (and rightly so). But Canaan embraced them. Leviticus 18 gives us a long list of forbidden sexual practices (also outlawing child sacrifice), and just before that, God singles out Canaan for special mention:

Do you think perhaps you had the answer there.  If Ham defiled his father and his mother by having sexual relations with his mother and Canaan was the offspring.  That still makes Canaan to be one of Ham's children.

Noah's wife's is also Noah's nakedness.

Leviticus 18 Authorized (King James) Version
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

That's definitely possible. After all, Moab and Ammon were neighbours of Canaan and similarly depraved. Their foundation was the incest between Lot and his daughters. So Canaan could well have had similar beginnings.

Reuben was judged because of what he did with Bilhah, something that impacted all his descendants:

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. (Genesis 49:3-4)

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. (1 Chronicles 5:1)

If Ham committed the sin that Reuben did (even worse though, because it would have been with his biological mother), then it would certainly make sense that Canaan was cursed because of that. In any case, this is certainly a sin that God judges quite severely.

[anvilhauler]

of the present day, Canaan was incredibly wicked. As evil as the world is right now, there are still some sexual sins (like incest and bestiality) that are frowned upon. No doubt there are people committing them, but they're still considered crimes. Unlike homosexuality, which is "socially acceptable", most people still find incest and bestiality abhorrent (and rightly so). But Canaan embraced them. Leviticus 18 gives us a long list of forbidden sexual practices (also outlawing child sacrifice), and just before that, God singles out Canaan for special mention:

Do you think perhaps you had the answer there.  If Ham defiled his father and his mother by having sexual relations with his mother and Canaan was the offspring.  That still makes Canaan to be one of Ham's children.

Noah's wife's is also Noah's nakedness.

Leviticus 18 Authorized (King James) Version
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

That's definitely possible. After all, Moab and Ammon were neighbours of Canaan and similarly depraved. Their foundation was the incest between Lot and his daughters. So Canaan could well have had similar beginnings.

Reuben was judged because of what he did with Bilhah, something that impacted all his descendants:

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. (Genesis 49:3-4)

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. (1 Chronicles 5:1)

If Ham committed the sin that Reuben did (even worse though, because it would have been with his biological mother), then it would certainly make sense that Canaan was cursed because of that. In any case, this is certainly a sin that God judges quite severely.

This is what could also account for there being the giants in the land.  The way God had made mankind and the changes made to the seed that followed on from such an incestuous situation.  Hence the reason maybe that God wanted them all wiped out completely from the face of the earth because that corruption of the seed was going to cause serious problems in the future. 

[Jeanne]

of the present day, Canaan was incredibly wicked. As evil as the world is right now, there are still some sexual sins (like incest and bestiality) that are frowned upon. No doubt there are people committing them, but they're still considered crimes. Unlike homosexuality, which is "socially acceptable", most people still find incest and bestiality abhorrent (and rightly so). But Canaan embraced them. Leviticus 18 gives us a long list of forbidden sexual practices (also outlawing child sacrifice), and just before that, God singles out Canaan for special mention:

Do you think perhaps you had the answer there.  If Ham defiled his father and his mother by having sexual relations with his mother and Canaan was the offspring.  That still makes Canaan to be one of Ham's children.

Noah's wife's is also Noah's nakedness.

Leviticus 18 Authorized (King James) Version
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

That's definitely possible. After all, Moab and Ammon were neighbours of Canaan and similarly depraved. Their foundation was the incest between Lot and his daughters. So Canaan could well have had similar beginnings.

Reuben was judged because of what he did with Bilhah, something that impacted all his descendants:

Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. (Genesis 49:3-4)

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. (1 Chronicles 5:1)

If Ham committed the sin that Reuben did (even worse though, because it would have been with his biological mother), then it would certainly make sense that Canaan was cursed because of that. In any case, this is certainly a sin that God judges quite severely.

I think you're going down the wrong track here. Let's read that passage in Genesis again:

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

This is specifically talking about Noah being drunk and naked in his tent, not his wife. Also, when Reuben defiled his father's wife/concubine, (and other places where sons took their fathers' wives) it is specifically spelled out in the Bible, not left to speculation.

That being said, I've always wondered what Ham did that was so wrong. I mean, did he know his father was naked before going into his tent? Did he know that he would end up seeing his father naked and do it on purpose? Should he have knocked first before going in in the first place? I also have to wonder about Ham's attitude when he told his brothers about it; if he was kind of snickering and joking about it, then yeah, that would have been extremely disrespectful and worthy of reprimand.

[Rowan M.]

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

This is specifically talking about Noah being drunk and naked in his tent, not his wife. Also, when Reuben defiled his father's wife/concubine, (and other places where sons took their fathers' wives) it is specifically spelled out in the Bible, not left to speculation.

That is an excellent point. I should have been more on the ball there and examined that angle as well. It was actually rattling around in the back of my mind, but I got a bit too caught up in the speculation. Went down a little rabbit hole, in a manner of speaking. As you say, if Ham had defiled his mother, surely the Bible would have clearly stated that.

That being said, I've always wondered what Ham did that was so wrong. I mean, did he know his father was naked before going into his tent? Did he know that he would end up seeing his father naked and do it on purpose? Should he have knocked first before going in in the first place? I also have to wonder about Ham's attitude when he told his brothers about it; if he was kind of snickering and joking about it, then yeah, that would have been extremely disrespectful and worthy of reprimand.

There may have been some sort of homosexual component to it (a lot of people believe this, but of course a lot of people believing something doesn't make it true). However, that is again entering into the realms of speculation, and where the Bible is silent on something, we should be very careful about "filling in the gaps".

[anvilhauler]

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

This is specifically talking about Noah being drunk and naked in his tent, not his wife. Also, when Reuben defiled his father's wife/concubine, (and other places where sons took their fathers' wives) it is specifically spelled out in the Bible, not left to speculation.

That is an excellent point. I should have been more on the ball there and examined that angle as well. It was actually rattling around in the back of my mind, but I got a bit too caught up in the speculation. Went down a little rabbit hole, in a manner of speaking. As you say, if Ham had defiled his mother, surely the Bible would have clearly stated that.

That being said, I've always wondered what Ham did that was so wrong. I mean, did he know his father was naked before going into his tent? Did he know that he would end up seeing his father naked and do it on purpose? Should he have knocked first before going in in the first place? I also have to wonder about Ham's attitude when he told his brothers about it; if he was kind of snickering and joking about it, then yeah, that would have been extremely disrespectful and worthy of reprimand.

There may have been some sort of homosexual component to it (a lot of people believe this, but of course a lot of people believing something doesn't make it true). However, that is again entering into the realms of speculation, and where the Bible is silent on something, we should be very careful about "filling in the gaps".

Yes, I had re-read the original part of scripture numerous times and could see that it didn't fit exactly.  Jeanne is right about filling in gaps.  I thought I would write it none the less in case someone else had more insight.  Although that particular incident happened between Noah and Ham there might have been previous incidents of wrong behaviour.  I'm still totally puzzled also about why Noah said what he did about Canaan but that it also came about that Canaan also had the giants.  Maybe Noah just happened to say what he did out of a sort of rage or embarrassment.  He had been drinking alcohol previously to the point that he was drunken.  Drunken people don't necessarily say the best of things or even the next day when they are still feeling the results of the alcohol.

On the giants side of things it would seem unusual that of the people on the ark that God had allowed one of them to have a genetic abberation perhaps as a result of genetic manipulation of man's genetics before the flood.  Having a ticking time bomb on what is a fresh new beginning for mankind doesn't seem to fit.

[Jeanne]

Yes, I had re-read the original part of scripture numerous times and could see that it didn't fit exactly.  Jeanne is right about filling in gaps.

Actually, Rowan was the one who correctly stated that we should be careful about filling in the gaps...

On the giants side of things it would seem unusual that of the people on the ark that God had allowed one of them to have a genetic abberation perhaps as a result of genetic manipulation of man's genetics before the flood.  Having a ticking time bomb on what is a fresh new beginning for mankind doesn't seem to fit.

If there was a gene for giants somewhere among the occupants of the ark, I'm guessing it would have had to come from Ham's wife, as Ham and his brothers all had the same ancestry with Noah and his wife, and of all the descendants of those on the ark, Canaan is the only one who produced giants (at least that we know of). I'm not going to try to pretend to know the mind of God, but it's not like that woman's ancestry was something she had any control over, and since she was married to Ham, God wasn't going to leave her behind because of a genetic 'defect'.

[anvilhauler]

Like a dog with a bone I just can't let this topic go and have been thinking some more about it.

As Jeanne also wrote and has always been speculated that the race of giants came through the lineage of Ham's wife.

In the scripture is mentioned the land of Canaan, named after Canaan, Ham's son.  However there is no land of Cush, or Mizraim, or Phut. 

Could it be that all of the sons are fully grown adults, but Canaan has already begun to show a level of aggression and arrogance and maybe even stature and has been voicing that they are going to be leaving and setting up a city and a land named after himself.  With whatever happened with what Ham did to his father Noah, it might be possible that their departure was imminent and after whatever he did he was never going to be able to look his father or his brothers in the eye again and because they were off he was never going to have to.  Maybe it was even Canaan that had said things prior to what Ham did and it was Canaan who put his father up to it.  Hence possibly why Noah cursed Canaan and those in the land of Canaan after him.

[Jeanne]

Actually, there were lands named after Ham's other sons:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Ezekiel 27:10They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.

Mizraim is also another name for Egypt. Even today, there is a bank in Egypt known as Banque Misr.

[anvilhauler]

Actually, there were lands named after Ham's other sons:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Ezekiel 27:10They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.

Mizraim is also another name for Egypt. Even today, there is a bank in Egypt known as Banque Misr.

But there is also Cush the Benjamite

Psalm 7
Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of Cush the Benjamite.

It seems that Cush was much more of a common name than Canaan.  Because the Israelites failed to rid the land of the people they were told to the name of Cush may have had more use than otherwise.

The Israelites were being sent in to the land of Canaan though.  Canaan was the big name of the land they were being sent in to.  God had decided that Canaan was going to be taken down and taken over.

Although this isn't foundational to Christian life today to a large degree, it is still interesting to ponder.  Just like Silindile was still puzzled over it, so am I.

[heathertaylor]

This is something that I have been wondering about for some time. The question is at the end, it requires context.

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.
 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

My question is why was Noah's grandson, Canaan, the one who was made a servant of servants when it was his father, Ham, that offended?

As I Was looking at your question I had 2 different verses come to mind that may answer your question.
Numbers 14:18
“The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”
 
  Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Even though the curse was upon Canaan, it was still effective toward Ham. It's about the seed of Ham and if his seed is cursed so, then the father of that seed is effected. Ham is indirectly but also directly affected because his seed will be servant to his brothers and their seed. Ham obviously was wicked and because of his wickedness .. His sons may be raised wrong and may be corrupted seed because of that raising. Canaan being cursed is Ham also being cursed because His lineage is. If I am wrong or have misused scripture.. I ask that you please correct me. But this is my understanding of the question. But also don't forget that God can forgive within that lineage if they're repentant toward God of their wrong they have done.
Also when it says that Noah and his sons were blessed. This could mean that he gave them the blessing of being able to be fruitful and multiply.