And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.
18. the sons of Noah ] The names of Noah’s sons have already frequently been given in the P narrative (Gen 5:32, Gen 6:10, Gen 7:13).
Ham is the father of Canaan ] This note has in all probability been inserted by the compiler, with reference to the section Gen 9:20-27 and the curse pronounced upon Canaan ( Gen 9:25 ; Gen 9:27).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
18 27. Noah, as the Vine-dresser, and his three Sons. (J.)
In this section the narrative, which begins at Gen 9:20, is introduced by the two connecting Gen 9:18-19, which either conclude J’s account of the Flood, or are an editorial insertion by the compiler.
( a) 18, 19 Noah and his family leave the ark: ( b) 20 24 Noah plants a vineyard, drinks wine, becomes intoxicated, is observed and ridiculed by Ham, but Shem and Japheth shew respect: ( c) 25 27 the curse of Noah on Canaan, the blessing on Shem and Japheth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– XXX. The Prophecy of Noah
18. kenaan, Kenaan, bowed down.
19. napats, break, scatter, spread. puts, break, scatter, flow.
20. kerem, orchard, vineyard.
21. yayn, wine; related: ferment.
After the blessing on the new heads of the human race has been pronounced, and the covenant with them renewed, we are prepared for a new development of human action. This appears, however, in the form of an event which is itself a meet preliminary to the subsequent stage of affairs. The prophecy of Noah, delivered in the shape of a solemn paternal doom, pronounced upon his three sons, sketches in a few striking traits the future history of the separate families of mankind.
Gen 9:18-19
These two verses form a connecting link between the preceding and the following passage. After the recital of the covenant, comes naturally the statement, that by the three sons of Noah, duly enumerated, was the whole land overspread. This forms a fit conclusion to the previous paragraph. But the penman of these sentences had evidently the following paragraph in view. For he mentions that Ham was the father of Kenaan; which is plainly the preface to the following narrative.
Gen 9:20-27
Then comes the prediction Gen 9:20-27, which has a special interest, as the first prophetic utterance of man recorded in the Old Testament. The occasion of it is first stated. Noah becomes a man of the soil. If he was before a mechanic, it is evident he must now attend to the cultivation of the soil, that he may draw from it the means of subsistence. He planted a vineyard. God was the first planter Gen 2:8; and since that time we hear nothing of the cultivation of trees until Noah becomes a planter. The cultivation of the vine and the manufacture of wine might have been in practice before this time, as the mention of them is merely incidental to the present narrative. But it seems likely from what follows, that, though grapes may have been in use, wine had not been extracted from them. And was drunken. We are not in a position to estimate the amount of Noahs guilt in this case, as we do not know how far he was acquainted with the properties of wine.
But we should take warning by the consequences, and beware of the abuse of any of Gods gifts. Ham the father of Kenaan. It is natural to suppose, as some have done, that Kennan had something to do with the guilt of this act. But there is no clear indication of this in the text, and Kenanns relationship to Ham may be again mentioned simply in anticipation of the subsequent prophecy. Ham is punished in his youngest son, who was perhaps a favorite. The intention of this act is eminently pure and befitting dutiful sons. The garment. The loose mantle or shawl which was used for wrapping round the body when going to sleep. The actions of the sons in this unpleasant occurrence, especially that of Ham, give occasion to the following prophetic sentence: His youngest son. This seems plainly the meaning of the phrase beno haqatan, his son, the little. He must be regarded here as contrasted with the other two, and therefore distinguished as the youngest.
The manner of Scripture here is worthy of particular remark. First, the prediction takes its rise from a characteristic incident. The conduct of the brothers was of comparatively slight importance in itself, but in the disposition which it betrayed it was highly significant. Secondly, the prediction refers in terms to the near future and to the outward condition of the parties concerned. Thirdly, it foreshadows under these familiar phrases the distant future, and the inward, as well as the outward, state of the family of man. Fourthly, it lays out the destiny of the whole race from its very starting-point. These simple laws will be found to characterize the main body of the predictions of Scripture.
Gen 9:25-27
The prophecy consists of two parts – a malediction and a benediction. Cursed be Kenaan. A curse Gen 3:14, Gen 3:17; Gen 4:11 is any privation, inferiority, or other ill, expressed in the form of a doom, and bearing, not always upon the object directly expressed, but upon the party who is in the transgression. Thus, the soil is cursed on account of Adam the transgressor Gen 3:17. It is apparent that in the present ease the prime mover was Ham, who is therefore punished in the prospect of a curse resting on his posterity, and especially on a particular line of it. Let us not imagine, however, that the ways of the Lord are not equal in this matter; for Kenaan and his descendants no doubt abundantly deserved this special visitation. And as the other descendants of Ham are not otherwise mentioned in the prophecy, we may presume that they shared in the curse pronounced upon Kenaan. At all events, they are not expressly included in the blessing pronounced on the other two divisions of the human family, It is proper to observe, also, that this prediction does not affirm an absolute perpetuity in the doom of Ham or Kenaan. It only delineates their relative condition until the whole race is again brought within the scope of prophecy.
A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. – The curse here consists in servitude, which is in itself an inferiority, and, among the children of self-will, tends more and more to all the horrid ills of slavery. Slavery originated in war and conquest. The mere warrior put the captives to death, the cannibal devoured them, the economist fed them for their labor. Accordingly, slavery soon made its appearance in all countries which were trodden by the conqueror. A system of slavery, imposed without consent and for no crime, is a dire evil. Besides the direct injustice of robbing a fellow-man of his personal liberty, it dissolves wedlock, breaks the family tie, and disregards the conscience. It trades, therefore, in the souls as well as the bodies of mankind. It is a historical fact that the degradation of slavery has fallen especially upon the race of Ham. A portion of the Kenaanites became bondsmen among the Israelites, who were of the race of Shem. The early Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, and Egyptians, who all belonged to the race of Ham, were subjugated by the Assyrians, who were Shemites, the Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans, who were all Japhethites. And in modern times it is well known that most of the nations of Europe traded in African slaves. A servant of servants means a slave of the most abject kind. Unto his brethren. If the doom of slavery be referred to the race of Ham, then his brethren are the descendants of Japheth and Shem, who have held many of the Hamites in bondage. If we limit the sentence to Kenaan, then his brethren may include the other descendants of Ham. It is said that the servile tribe is also the most tyrannical; and it is the fact that the Africans have lent themselves to the forcible seizing and selling into slavery in distant lands of their own kinsmen and fellow-countrymen.
Gen 9:26, Gen 9:27
And he said. – The prediction concerning the other two brothers is a distinct utterance of Noah. Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem. The characteristic boon of Shem is that Yahweh, the one true, living, known God, is his God. The knowledge and worship of the Creator is preserved in the family of Shem, when it is lost or fatally obscured among the other descendants of Noah. The prophet is so conscious of the unspeakable blessing of knowing and loving the true God, that he breaks out into thanksgiving in the very act of announcing the transcendent privilege of Shem. There is a dark side, however, to this prophetic thought, as it implies that the two other families of mankind, at least for part of the period under the prophets view, were estranged from the true and living God. History corroborates both aspects of this prophetic sentence for the space of two thousand four hundred years. During the most part of this long period the Holy Yahweh Omnipotent was unknown to the great mass of the Japhethites, Hamites, and even Shemites. And it was only by the special election and consecration of an individual Shemite to be the head of a special people, and the father of the faithful, that he did not cease to be the God of even a remnant of Shem.
Then follows the refrain, And Kenaan shall be servant unto them. The phrase unto them proves that Shem here comprehends the race descended from him, and consisting of many individuals. Scripture sees the race in the father, traces up its unity to him, discerns in him the leading traits of character that often mark his remotest posterity, and identifies with him in destiny all those of his race who continue to take after him. Thus, Adam denotes the whole race, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, its three great branches. Attention to this law of the unity, continuity, and identity of a race, will aid us much in understanding the dealings of Providence with the several branches of the human family. We learn also from the same phrase that this solemn sentence is no mere ebullition of the personal feelings of Noah. He is not speaking of Shem and Kenaan merely, but of the future races that are to spring from them. This appears still more plainly from the fact that Japheth, as well as Ham, is described as long estranged from the true God. And now that we are on spiritual ground, it ought to be observed that Kenaans curse is not exclusion, either present or prospective, from the mercy of God. That is an evil he brings on himself by a voluntary departure from the living God. The curse merely affects the body – the personal liberty. It is a mere degradation from some of the natural rights of our common humanity; and does not of itself cut him off from any offer of mercy, or benefit of repentant faith.
God shall enlarge Japheth. – God is here spoken of by his generic name. This intimates, or at least coincides, with the fact that Japheth did not continue that nearness of approach to him which is implied in the use of the personal name. There is in the original a play upon the word Japheth, which itself signifies enlargement. This enlargement is the most striking point in the history of Japheth, who is the progenitor of the inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and America, except the region between the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Euxine, the Caspian, and the mountains beyond the Tigris, which was the main seat of the Shemites. This expansive power refers not only to the territory and the multitude of the Japhethites, but also to their intellectual and active faculties. The metaphysics of the Hindus, the philosophy of the Greeks, the military prowess of the Romans, and the modern science and civilization of the world, are due to the race of Japheth. And though the moral and the spiritual were first developed among the Shemites, yet the Japhethites have proved themselves capable of rising to the heights of these lofty themes, and have elaborated that noble form of human speech, which was adopted, in the providence of God, as best suited to convey to mankind that further development of Old Testament truth which is furnished in the New.
And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. – We regard Japheth as the subject of this sentence; because, if God were its subject, the meaning would be substantially the same as the blessing of Shem, already given, and because this would intermingle the blessing of Shem with that of Japheth, without any important addition to our information. Whereas, when Japheth is the subject of the sentence, we learn that he shall dwell in the tents of Shem – an altogether new proposition. This form of expression does not indicate a direct invasion and conquest of the land of Shem, which would not be in keeping with the blessing pronounced on him in the previous sentence: it rather implies that this dwelling together would be a benefit to Japheth, and no injury to Shem. Accordingly, we find that when the Persians conquered the Babylonian empire, they restored the Jews to their native land; when Alexander the Great conquered the Persians, he gave protection to the Jews; and when the Romans subdued the Greek monarchy, they befriended the chosen nation, and allowed them a large measure of self-government. In their time came the Messiah, and instituted that new form of the church of the Old Testament which not only retained the best part of the ancient people of God, but extended itself over the whole of Europe, the chief seat of Japheth; went with him wherever he went; and is at this day, through the blessing of God on his political and moral influence, penetrating into the moral darkness of Ham, as well as the remainder of Shem and Japheth himself. Thus, in the highest of all senses, Japheth is dwelling in the tents of Shem.
Again comes the refrain, And Keenan shall be servant unto them. A portion of Japheth still holds a portion of Ham in bondage. But this very bondage has been the means of bringing some of the sons of Ham to dwell in the tents of Shem; and the day is not far distant when Japheth will relinquish altogether the compulsory hold upon his brother, and consecrate his entire moral influence over him to the revival in his race of the knowledge and love of God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus, it appears that the destiny of these three great branches of the Noachic family, during the time of their separation on the high question of their relation to God, is traced out with great fidelity in this remarkable prediction. Ham is aptly represented by Kenaan, the slave, who is seized, enslaved, and sold even by his kinsmen to one another, and to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. Shem includes within his posterity the select family who know God as the Lord, the God of promise, of mercy, of salvation. Japheth is enlarged by God, and at length becomes acquainted with him whom he once ignorantly worshipped. The historian recognizes these as salient points in the experience of the three races, so long as they continue apart. The time is approaching when this strange intermediate development will come to a happy issue, in the reunion of all the members of the human family, according to clearer and further-reaching prophecies yet to be delivered.
Gen 9:28, Gen 9:29
The history of Noah is now closed, in the customary form of the fifth chapter. This marks a connection between the third and fourth documents, and points to one hand as the composer, or at least compiler, of both. The document now closed could not have had the last paragraph appended to it until after the death of Noah. But, with the exception of these two verses, it might have been composed hundreds of years before. This strongly favors the notion of a constant continuator, or, at all events, continuation of the sacred history. Every new prophet and inspired writer whom God raised up added the necessary portion and made the necessary insertions in the sacred record. And hence, the Word of God had a progressive growth and adaptation to the successive ages of the church.
The present document stands between the old world and the new world. Hence, it has a double character, being the close of the antediluvian history, and the introduction to that of the postdiluvian race. It records a great event, pregnant with warning to all future generations of men. And it notes the delegation, by God to man, of authority to punish the murderer by death, and therefore to enforce all the minor sanctions of law for breaches of the civil compact. It therefore points out the institution of civil government as coming from God, and clearly exhibits the accountability of all governments to God for all the powers they hold, and for the mode in which they are exercised. This also is a great historical lesson for all ages.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 9:18-19
The sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth
The factors of human culture
Mankind have a common calling as human beings, to which we give the name of culture.
This comprehends all influences from without that form the human character and create history. The world of mankind is a complex product which several elements have helped to form. The names of these progenitors of the new race are significant of great principles of thought and action, which have guided the progress and shaped the destinies of mankind. We have here those effective powers which have been at work throughout the whole course of history.
I. RELIGION. This is represented by Shorn, which signifies the name, i.e. the name of God with all its fulness of meaning for man. The knowledge of that name was to be preserved through Shem, for without it the race must fail to reach its highest perfection. Shem is mentioned first because religion is the chief glory of man, the only source of his true greatness, and the only worthy end of his life. Consider religion:
1. As a system of thought. It has certain truths addressed to the intellect, heart, and conscience. Religion comprises–
(1) The knowledge of God;
(2) the knowledge of man;
(3) the knowledge of things.
2. As a rule of life.
3. As a remedy for sin.
II. THE SPIRIT OF WORK AND ENTERPRISE. This is another factor which enters into the culture of the human race. It is represented by Japheth, which signifies enlargement. There was in him an energy by which he could overcome obstacles and expand his empire over the world. This spirit of work and enterprise has given birth to civilization. The union of external activity with mental power is the source of mans greatness and superiority in the world.
1. It is necessary to material progress. In the division of human labour the thinkers stand first of all. Mind must survey the work and plan the means by which it is to be accomplished. But for the practical work of life, there must be energy to carry out the thoughts of the mind, and render them effective in those labours which minister to prosperity and happiness.
2. It is necessary to mental progress. By far the larger proportion of human knowledge has been acquired by the actual struggle with the difficulties of our present existence. The battle of life has drawn out the powers of the mind.
3. It is necessary to religious progress, The knowledge of spiritual truth must be expressed in duty, or man can have no religion. Doctrines are only valuable as they teach us how to live. Activity without contemplation has many evils, but united with it is the perfection of spiritual life. True thoughts of God and ourselves must be manifested in that energy by which we contend with evil, and perform our duty.
III. THE POWER OF EVIL. This is represented by Ham, who is the picture of moral inability–of one who knows his duty, but is unable to perform it. A large portion of the energy of mankind is spent in contention with evil, in neutralizing the labours of one another, and but a poor remainder issues in useful work. This power of evil accounts for–
1. The slow education of the race.
2. The monstrous forms of vice. These are developed even in the midst of the best influences and restraints.
3. The limited diffusion of religion.
4. The imperfection of the best. Still, our great hope for the race is that evil is not the strongest power in it. (T. H. Leale.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Which is here mentioned to make way for the following relation.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth,…. These were born before the flood, and went into the ark with Noah, and came out with him; see Ge 5:32
and Ham [is the] father of Canaan; this is observed for the sake of the following history, concerning the behaviour of the one to Noah, and of the curse of the other by him, which would not have been so well understood if this remark had not been made: the father and the son, as they were, related in nature, they were much alike in manners and behaviour. Cush, the firstborn of Ham, is not mentioned, but Canaan, his youngest son, because he was cursed, as Aben Ezra observes; and who remarks that the paragraph is written to show that the Canaanites were accursed, the father of whom this Canaan was; and who is the same Sanchoniatho y calls Cna, and says he was the first that was called a Phoenician.
y Apud. Euseb. Evangel. Praepar. l. 1. p. 39.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The second occurrence in the life of Noah after the flood exhibited the germs of the future development of the human race in a threefold direction, as manifested in the characters of his three sons. As all the families and races of man descend from them, their names are repeated in Gen 9:18; and in prospective allusion to what follows, it is added that “ Ham was the father of Canaan.” From these three “ the earth (the earth’s population) spread itself out.” “ The earth ” is used for the population of the earth, as in Gen 10:25 and Gen 11:1, and just as lands or cities are frequently substituted for their inhabitants. : probably Niphal for , from to scatter (Gen 11:4), to spread out. “ And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard.” As cannot be the predicate of the sentence, on account of the article, but must be in apposition to Noah, and must be combined in the sense of “began to plant” ( Ges. 142, 3). The writer does not mean to affirm that Noah resumed his agricultural operations after the flood, but that as a husbandman he began to cultivate the vine; because it was this which furnished the occasion for the manifestation of that diversity in the character of his sons, which was so eventful in its consequences in relation to the future history of their descendants. In ignorance of the fiery nature of wine, Noah drank and was drunken, and uncovered himself in his tent (Gen 9:21). Although excuse may be made for this drunkenness, the words of Luther are still true: “ Qui excusant patriarcham, volentes hanc consolationem, quam Spiritus S. ecclesiis necessariam judicavit, abjuciunt, quod scilicen etiam summi sancti aliquando labuntur. ” This trifling fall served to display the hearts of his sons. Ham saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Not content with finding pleasure himself in his father’s shame, “nunquam enim vino victum patrem filius resisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet ” ( Luther), he just proclaimed his disgraceful pleasure to his brethren, and thus exhibited his shameless sensuality. The brothers, on the contrary, with reverential modesty covered their father with a garment ( the garment, which was at hand), walking backwards that they might not see his nakedness (Gen 9:23), and thus manifesting their childlike reverence as truly as their refined purity and modesty. For this they receive their father’s blessing, whereas Ham reaped for his son Canaan the patriarch’s curse. In Gen 9:24 Ham is called “his (Noah’s) little son,” and it is questionable whether the adjective is to be taken as comparative in the sense of “the younger,” or as superlative, meaning “the youngest.” Neither grammar nor the usage of the language will enable us to decide. For in 1Sa 17:14, where David is contrasted with his brothers, the word means not the youngest of the four, but the younger by the side of the three elder, just as in Gen 1:16 the sun is called “the great” light, and the moon “the little ” light, not to show that the sun is the greatest and the moon the least of all lights, but that the moon is the smaller of the two. If, on the other hand, on the ground of 1Sa 16:11, where “the little one” undoubtedly means the youngest of all, any one would press the superlative force here, he must be prepared, in order to be consistent, to do the same with haggadol , “the great one,” in Gen 10:21, which would lead to this discrepancy, that in the verse before us Ham is called Noah’s youngest son, and in Gen 10:21 Shem is called Japhet’s oldest brother, and thus implicite Ham is described as older than Japhet. If we do not wish lightly to introduce a discrepancy into the text of these two chapters, no other course is open than to follow the lxx, Vulg. and others, and take “the little” here and “the great” in Gen 10:21 as used in a comparative sense, Ham being represented here as Noah’s younger son, and Shem in Gen 10:21 as Japhet’s elder brother. Consequently the order in which the three names stand is also an indication of their relative ages. And this is not only the simplest and readiest assumption, but is even confirmed by Gen 10, though the order is inverted there, Japhet being mentioned first, then Ham, and Shem last; and it is also in harmony with the chronological datum in Gen 11:10, as compared with Gen 5:32 (vid., Gen 11:10).
To understand the words of Noah with reference to his sons (Gen 9:25-27), we must bear in mind, on the one hand, that as the moral nature of the patriarch was transmitted by generation to his descendants, so the diversities of character in the sons of Noah foreshadowed diversities in the moral inclinations of the tribes of which they were the head; and on the other hand, that Noah, through the Spirit and power of that God with whom he walked, discerned in the moral nature of his sons, and the different tendencies which they already displayed, the germinal commencement of the future course of their posterity, and uttered words of blessing and of curse, which were prophetic of the history of the tribes that descended from them. In the sin of Ham “there lies the great stain of the whole Hamitic race, whose chief characteristic is sexual sin” ( Ziegler); and the curse which Noah pronounced upon this sin still rests upon the race. It was not Ham who was cursed, however, but his son Canaan. Ham had sinned against his father, and he was punished in his son. But the reason why Canaan was the only son named, is not to be found in the fact that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham, and Ham the youngest son of Noah, as Hoffmann supposes. The latter is not an established fact; and the purely external circumstance, that Canaan had the misfortune to be the youngest son, could not be a just reason for cursing him alone. The real reason must either lie in the fact that Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father’s impiety and sin, or else be sought in the name Canaan, in which Noah discerned, through the gift of prophecy, a significant omen; a supposition decidedly favoured by the analogy of the blessing pronounced upon Japhet, which is also founded upon the name. Canaan does not signify lowland, nor was it transferred, as many maintain, from the land to its inhabitants; it was first of all the name of the father of the tribe, from whom it was transferred to his descendants, and eventually to the land of which they took possession. The meaning of Canaan is “the submissive one,” from to stoop or submit, Hiphil, to bend or subjugate (Deu 9:3; Jdg 4:23, etc.). “Ham gave his son the name from the obedience which he required, though he did not render it himself. The son was to be the servant (for the name points to servile obedience) of a father who was as tyrannical towards those beneath him, as he was refractory towards those above. The father, when he gave him the name, thought only of submission to his own commands. But the secret providence of God, which rules in all such things, had a different submission in view” (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 28, transl.). “Servant of servants (i.e., the lowest of slaves, vid., Ewald, 313) let him become to his brethren.” Although this curse was expressly pronounced upon Canaan alone, the fact that Ham had no share in Noah’s blessing, either for himself or his other sons, was a sufficient proof that his whole family was included by implication in the curse, even if it was to fall chiefly upon Canaan. And history confirms the supposition. The Canaanites were partly exterminated, and partly subjected to the lowest form of slavery, by the Israelites, who belonged to the family of Shem; and those who still remained were reduced by Solomon to the same condition (1Ki 9:20-21). The Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans; and the remainder of the Hamitic tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the negroes, for example, and other African tribes, beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Sin of Ham. | B. C. 2347. |
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be a 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.
Here is, I. Noah’s family and employment. The names of his sons are again mentioned (Gen 9:18; Gen 9:19) as those from whom the whole earth was overspread, by which it appears that Noah, after the flood, had no more children: all the world came from these three. Note, God, when he pleases, can make a little one to become a thousand, and greatly increase the latter end of those whose beginning was small. Such are the power and efficacy of a divine blessing. The business Noah applied himself to was that of a husbandman, Heb. a man of the earth, that is, a man dealing in the earth, that kept ground in his hand, and occupied it. We are all naturally men of the earth, made of it, living on it, and hastening to it: many are sinfully so, addicted to earthly things. Noah was by his calling led to trade in the fruits of the earth. He began to be a husbandman, that is, some time after his departure out of the ark, he returned to his old employment, from which he had been diverted by the building of the ark first, and probably afterwards by the building of a house on dry land for himself and family. For this good while he had been a carpenter, but now he began again to be a husbandman. Observe, Though Noah was a great man and a good man, an old man and a rich man, a man greatly favoured by heaven and honoured on earth, yet he would not live an idle life, nor think the husbandman’s calling below him. Note, Though God by his providence may take us off from our callings for a time, yet when the occasion is over we ought with humility and industry to apply ourselves to them again, and, in the calling wherein we are called, faithfully to abide with God, 1 Cor. vii. 24.
II. Noah’s sin and shame: He planted a vineyard; and, when he had gathered his vintage, probably he appointed a day of mirth and feasting in his family, and had his sons and their children with him, to rejoice with him in the increase of his house as well as in the increase of his vineyard; and we may suppose he prefaced his feast with a sacrifice to the honour of God. If this was omitted, it was just with God to leave him to himself, that he who did not begin with God might end with the beasts; but we charitably hope that it was not: and perhaps he appointed this feast with a design, at the close of it, to bless his sons, as Isaac,Gen 27:3; Gen 27:4, That I may eat, and that my soul may bless thee. At this feast he drank of the wine; for who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit of it? But he drank too liberally, more than his head at this age would bear, for he was drunk. We have reason to think he was never drunk before nor after; observe how he came now to be overtaken in this fault. It was his sin, and a great sin, so much the worse for its being so soon after a great deliverance; but God left him to himself, as he did Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 31), and has left this miscarriage of his upon record, to teach us, 1. That the fairest copy that ever mere man wrote since the fall had its blots and false strokes. It was said of Noah that he was perfect in his generations (ch. vi. 9), but this shows that it is meant of sincerity, not a sinless perfection. 2. That sometimes those who, with watchfulness and resolution, have, by the grace of God, kept their integrity in the midst of temptation, have, through security, and carelessness, and neglect of the grace of God, been surprised into sin, when the hour of temptation has been over. Noah, who had kept sober in drunken company, is now drunk in sober company. Let him that thinks he stands take heed. 3. That we have need to be very careful, when we use God’s good creatures plentifully, lest we use them to excess. Christ’s disciples must take heed lest at any time their hearts be overcharged, Luke xxi. 34. Now the consequence of Noah’s sin was shame. He was uncovered within his tent, made naked to his shame, as Adam when he had eaten forbidden fruit. Yet Adam sought concealment; Noah is so destitute of thought and reason that he seeks no covering. This was a fruit of the vine that Noah did not think of. Observe here the great evil of the sin of drunkenness. (1.) It discovers men. What infirmities they have, they betray when they are drunk, and what secrets they are entrusted with are then easily got out of them. Drunken porters keep open gates. (2.) It disgraces men, and exposes them to contempt. As it shows them, so it shames them. Men say and do that when drunk which when they are sober they would blush at the thoughts of, Hab 2:15; Hab 2:16.
III. Ham’s impudence and impiety: He saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren, v. 22. To see it accidentally and involuntarily would not have been a crime; but, 1. He pleased himself with the sight, as the Edomites looked up on the day of their brother (Obad. 12), pleased, and insulting. Perhaps Ham had sometimes been himself drunk, and reproved for it by his good father, whom he was therefore pleased to see thus overcome. Note, It is common for those who walk in false ways themselves to rejoice at the false steps which they sometimes see others make. But charity rejoices not in iniquity, nor can true penitents that are sorry for their own sins rejoice in the sins of others. 2. He told his two brethren without (in the street, as the word is), in a scornful deriding manner, that his father might seem vile unto them. It is very wrong, (1.) To make a jest of sin (Prov. xiv. 9), and to be puffed up with that for which we should rather mourn, 1 Cor. v. 2. And, (2.) To publish the faults of any, especially of parents, whom it is our duty to honour. Noah was not only a good man, but had been a good father to him; and this was a most base disingenuous requital to him for his tenderness. Ham is here called the father of Canaan, which intimates that he who was himself a father should have been more respectful to him that was his father.
IV. The pious care of Shem and Japheth to cover their poor father’s shame, v. 23. They not only would not see it themselves, but provided that no one else might see it, herein setting us an example of charity with reference to other men’s sin and shame; we must not only not say, A confederacy, with those that proclaim it, but we must be careful to conceal it, or at least to make the best of it, so doing as we would be done by. 1. There is a mantle of love to be thrown over the faults of all, 1 Pet. iv. 8. 2. Besides this, there is a robe of reverence to be thrown over the faults of parents and other superiors.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 18-27:
The sons of Noah appear in their role as the heads of the nations into which mankind developed. The name of Ham’s fourth son (Canaan) is inserted, likely because of the role he played in the development of God’s chosen people.
It is impossible to determine with accuracy the span of time covered in the above verses. The sacred record is not so much concerned with chronology as with the events in time.
Noah took up the occupation of “a husbandman,” a “man of the ground” or a farmer. One of his crops was a vineyard. This is by no means unusual in the mountains of Armenia, where the ark rested after the flood. Vine growing was practiced among the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and other countries in the land of the Bible.
Noah made wine from grapes of his vineyard. One day he drank too much and became drunken. Some have tried to excuse Noah’s drunkenness by suggesting that he did not know the grape juice was fermented and that it would make him drunk. They suggest that prior to the flood, the atmospheric conditions were such that fermentation could not take place. This appears unlikely, in view of Jesus’ description of conditions in Noah’s time, see Mt 24:38. There is no excuse for what Noah did. He sinned when he got drunk. And this sin led to other, deeper shame. In his drunken state, Noah exposed himself, literally made himself naked. His younger son Ham saw him. The text implies he “did” something to Noah. Instead of being grieved, Ham mocked his father and told his brothers of Noah’s shame. Shem and Japheth manifested a spirit of reverence toward their father. They covered him with a robe, and refused to scorn and mock him (see Eph 6:1-3; Pr 30:17).
Noah awoke from his drunken stupor and learned what Ham had done to him. He then pronounced a curse – not upon Ham, but upon Canaan, Ham’s fourth-born son. This curse may have been pronounced at once, or it may have been at some subsequent time. The contents, not the timing, of the curse are important.
The “curse” was not a matter of personal resentment, nor in a spirit of vindictive anger. It is under the inspiration of a prophetic spirit, in which Noah acted as the priest and prophet for his family. It was a prophecy regarding the character of those involved.
Some suggest this “curse of Ham,” was placed upon Canaan rather than on Ham himself; some believe that since “Ham” may mean “dark, or swarthy,” there is a curse of servitude upon all dark-skinned people, particularly the black races. The implication is that this curse condemns the Blacks to perpetual servitude.
Blacks are not descendants of Canaan, but of Cush, Mizraim, and others of Ham’s sons. There appears to be no Scriptural or historical basis of the inherent inferiority of Blacks; nor does servitude infer inferiority, Mt 20:26. Some of history’s most advanced (but corrupt) civilizations were of Blacks (Babylon, Egypt, etc.).
The “curse” was upon Canaan, son of Ham, not upon Ham. Canaan’s descendants settled in the region of Palestine, which was included in the land grant God bestowed upon Abraham and his seed, Ge 12; Ge 15. The curse was that his offspring would be “a servant of servants unto his brethren.” Partial fulfillment of this is seen in Israel’s conquest of Canaan, in which some of the descendants of Canaan became “hewers of wood and drawers of water” (Jos 9:22-27). There are no Canaanites in the world today, as a separate and distinct people, known by that name.
(Some expositors hold that Noah did address the curse to Ham, and not to Canaan, based upon the similarities of the names “Cain” and “Canaan” in the Hebrew text. They suggest the name “Canaan” implies “Cain-like,” and was placed on all Ham’s offspring. Thus they see Noah’s curse on Canaan as in reality a curse upon Ham’s entire lineage, because he was a “Cain-like” man. This view holds that all Ham’s descendants, which includes the black and dark-skinned races, came under the curse, including perpetual servitude, a “servant of servants.unto his brethren.”
The implication is that the curse was upon Canaan, at the same time Noah conferred the blessings upon Shem and Japheth. It was the custom that the blessings and curses were among the last words of the patriarchs (Ge 49). Thus it is reasonable to believe that a number of years intervened between Ham’s shameful irreverence, and the family blessings and curse which Noah pronounced upon his sons, as follows:
1) Noah’s prophetic blessing upon Shem identifies him with Jehovah. The prohecy was that he should not only enjoy rich blessings, but that Jehovah would be his God. The true knowledge and witness of Jehovah would be perpetuated through Shem’s descendants. The Promised Seed would be from his loins.
It is true that many Semitic peoples forsook Jehovah. For example, the Assyrians (Asshur) were idolaters. However, the “Faith-line” of righteous Seth continued through Shem’s offspring. Ge 10:21-31 lists Shem’s descendants and the areas they populated, and some of the nations which sprang from them. Among them are: Persia (Elam), Assyria (Asshur), Lydia (Lud), Armenia (Hul and Mash), and the Hebrews (Eber).
2) The prophetic blessing of Japheth and his descendants refers to the widespread diffusion and prosperity of the Japhetic nations. The prophecy does not identify Jehovah as the God of Japheth. However, Japheth’s descendants partake of the blessing of Jehovah, as they come to “dwell in the tents of Shem.”
The “enlargement” of Japheth may refer to intellectual achievements as well as to territorial expansion. This is evident in the history of those nations which sprang from Japheth’s descendants. They include: Germany (Gomer), the Tartars and Mongols (Magog), Media (Madai), Greece (Javan), the Thracians (Tiras), et. al. Some historians include the Romans among Japheth’s descendants, as well as the Aryans who invaded and conquered vast regions of India and the Orient.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
18. The sons of Noah. Moss enumerates the sons of Noah, not only because he is about to pass on to the following history, but for the purpose of more fully illustrating the force of the promise, “Replenish the earth.” For we may hence better conceive how efficacious the blessing of God has been, because an immense multitude of men proceeded in a short time from so small a number; and because one family, and that a little one, grew into so many, and such numerous nations.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 9:18. Shem, and Ham, and Japheth] See Critical Notes, ch. 5. Japheth was the eldest; but Shem is named first, as being the family whence the Messiah was to spring.Ham] So named, probably, from his children occupying the torrid regions. The name is applied to Egypt; and in the Coptic signifies blackness, as well as heat.Japheth] Signifies spreading. He was the father of the largest portion of the human family, Celtic, Persian, Grecian, Germanoccupying the northern part of Asia, and all Europe.Ham is the father of Canaan] Mentioned to draw attention to the fact that Ham was cursed in his family, not specially in himself. The sacred historian appends such notices, as reading the prophetic word by the light of subsequent history. It was also necessary to show how the curse of God rested upon the Canaanites.
Gen. 9:19. Overspread] Heb. divided, or dispersed. They were the progenitors of those who divided the whole earth for a habitation.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 9:18-19
THE FACTORS OF HUMAN CULTURE
Mankind have a common calling as human beings, to which we give the name of culture. This comprehends all influences from without that form the human character and create history. The world of mankind is a complex product which several elements have helped to form. The names of these progenitors of the new race are significant of great principles of thought and action, which have guided the progress and shaped the destinies of mankind. We have here those effective powers which have been at work throughout the whole course of history.
I. Religion. This is represented by Shem, which signifies the name, i.e. the name of God with all its fulness of meaning for man. The knowledge of that name was to be preserved through Shem, for without it the race must fail to reach its highest perfection. Shem is mentioned first because religion is the chief glory of man, the only source of his true greatness, and the only worthy end of his life. Without religion, man must be ignorant of his destiny and the ultimate aim of history. The knowledge and practice of it can alone redeem men from the vanity of their condition. Consider religion:
1. As a system of thought. It has certain truths addressed to the intellect, heart, and conscience. Religion comprises
(1.) The knowledge of God. What God is in Himself is beyond our comprehension; His nature eludes our furthest search, and retires into that eternity which He alone inhabits. But it is possible for us to know God in those relations in which He stands to ourselves. The revelation of His name has therefore an important meaning for mankind. All our duties, hopes, and destinies are bound up with it. Man must know God in this regard before the lost features of the Divine image in him can be restored. There is a knowledge of God which is but a barren exercise of the mind, which regards the subject as merely curious and in no way connected with mans life. It is necessary that men should feel after God, and be conscious of Him as the Ever Near. God must be a felt reality, or there can be no true knowledge. To know God is to know the chief end of life, that ethical side of knowledge which the Scripture calls wisdom.
(2.) Religion comprises the knowledge of man. From it alone we can learn what man is in his nature and origin, what are his relations to God, his duties in the world, why he is here, and what is his prospect beyond life. Science may investigate the nature of man, and even prescribe his duties. It may minister to his prosperity in the world. But science only lights up the valleys of our nature; the summits of it can only be illumined by a light from heaven. The contemplation of human nature apart from religion is gloomy and uncomfortable. The true knowledge of ourselves is an essential part of religion. We must know ourselves as capable of God, and of all those great things for which He can fashion and prepare us. The religious idea of man is necessary to the true study of himself.
(3.) The knowledge of things. Man has powers to observe the facts and appearances of nature, to reason upon them, and to reduce the results of his investigation to the systems of science. But the grandeur of this universe can never be truly felt and seen until we look at it through God. The things that are made are His thoughts; they show forth His glory. True piety in the heart transforms creation into a mighty temple filled with the praises of its Maker. The study of things yields but a melancholy satisfaction if we do not see above them the Divine eye and heart. Religion raises all science to a higher truth.
2. As a rule of life. The truths of religion are not intended merely to give us right thoughts of God and our condition here, but also to teach us how to live. The fact that God stands in certain relations to ourselves implies that there are certain duties arising out of those relations. To the revelation of the Divine name, as preserved by the family of Shem, mankind owes the noblest motive of conduct, the highest ideal of virtue and of life. If it was given to the Greeks to develop the powers of the intellect, it was the prerogative of Judaism to develop the conscience. How superior is the moral code delivered to the chosen race to that of the nations that lived about them! The standard of morality is raised in all those nations where the light of revelation shines. In the culture of the human race in virtue, religion is the chief factor.
3. As a remedy for sin. It was given to the family of Shem to nourish the expectation of the Messiah, to prepare mankind for His coming, and to witness His manifestation. The weight of sin pressed upon the human conscience, and men sought in many ways to avert the displeasure of heaven and secure acceptance. Hence the various religions of the world. Mankind yearned for some Deliverer from sin, who could restore light and peace to their souls. The coming of Christ imparted a sublime impulse to the education of the world. In Him humanity had reached its flower and perfection. The noblest ideal of life was given. Devotion was rendered easier for the mind and heart. The whole conception of the dignity of human nature was raised when God became man. The true way of peace was made known to the troubled conscience, and men could come to their Father in the joy of forgiveness. The passion for Christ, generated by the sense of His love, has produced the noblest heroism which the world has ever seen. It has developed the highest type of man. If the Desire of all nations had not come, how different would have been the issues of history; how aimless and unsatisfactory all human effort! We cannot overrate the influence of religion on the intellectual progress of mankind. It will be found that all the greatest and most exalted ideas in the mind of the poorest and most unlearned man in Christendom are derived from religion. Christianity has made the greatest ideas common to all.
II. The spirit of work and enterprise. This is another factor which enters into the culture of the human race. It is represented by Japheth, which signifies enlargement. There was in him an energy by which he could overcome obstacles and expand his empire over the world. This spirit of work and enterprise has given birth to civilisation. The union of external activity with mental power is the source of mans greatness and superiority in the world.
1. It is necessary to material progress. In the division of human labour the thinkers stand first of all. Mind must survey the work and plan the means by which it is to be accomplished. But for the practical work of life, there must be energy to carry out the thoughts of the mind, and render them effective in those labours which minister to prosperity and happiness. Man cannot obtain the victory over Nature by contemplation alone. Philosophy must come down from her high seat and mix with men before any great practical results can be secured. Nature places obstacles in the way of man to rouse his thought and develop his powers of invention and contrivance. He has to contend with the earth and the sea, and even against some adverse forces in society itself. It is necessary that this contest should be directed by the few who are thinkers, yet it can only come to a successful issue by the labours of the many who are workers.
2. It is necessary to mental progress. The knowledge and contemplation of truth only partially satisfies the necessities of the mind. Truth becomes an energy when it is embodied and doing work. By the application of abstract truths to the labours of life man has accomplished the greatest results. The mind becomes expanded when it is able to pass from the knowledge of its own facts to those of the world around. By far the larger proportion of human knowledge has been acquired by the actual struggle with the difficulties of our present existence. The battle of life has drawn out the powers of the mind.
3. It is necessary to religious progress. The knowledge of spiritual truth must be expressed in duty, or man can have no religion. Doctrines are only valuable as they teach us how to live. Activity without contemplation has many evils, but united with it is the perfection of spiritual life. True thoughts of God and ourselves must be manifested in that energy by which we contend with evil, and perform our duty.
III. The power of evil. This is represented by Ham, who is the picture of moral inabilityof one who knows his duty but is unable to perform it. Evil is the disquieting element in human culture; a disadvantage, like friction in a machine. Moral weakness complicates mans struggle, protracts it through the ages, and delays victory. The tremendous power of evil must be acknowledged, but it is a terrible factor in the estimate of all human thoughts, struggles, and labours. In the culture of humanity, Ham lays waste the labours of Shem and Japheth. The persistence of evil demands new vigour from those who think and from those who work. One sinner can destroy much good that earnest minds and hearts have slowly laboured to build up. A large portion of the energy of mankind is spent in contention with evil, in neutralising the labours of one another, and but a poor remainder issues in useful work. This power of evil accounts for
1. The slow education of the race.
2. The monstrous forms of vice. These are developed even in the midst of the best influences and restraints.
3. The limited diffusion of religion.
4. The imperfection of the best. Still our great hope for the race is that evil is not the strongest power in it. Man is capable of goodness, of receiving the grace of God in sufficient measures to ensure his victory. Christ did not despair of humanity, for He knew it could be united to God and prevail. Religion is the strongest force in society; and though in the course of history Shem is the last to be developed, yet he is first in the kingdom of God. Japheths activity may secure present admiration, yet mankind must confess at last that to the preserver of the Divine name and salvation it owes its true wealth, prosperity, and lasting honour.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 9:18-19. In the development now to appear, we naturally turn to the sons of Noah, to see whether the promised salvation is soon to come. Here for the fourth time the sons of Noah are mentioned (ch. Gen. 5:32; Gen. 6:10; Gen. 7:13), to show that these alone came out of the ark as the branches into which the human family was now to be divided. In the new development now to be traced out, the character of the sons of Noah is to be given to show that the hope of the race in the Messiah was to be not in the line of Ham, nor of Japheth, but of Shemleading also to an enlargement of Japheth. This is in accordance with what is seen in the conduct of the brothers.(Jacobus.)
In the individual character of the sons of Noah, we have the ground-plan of all history.
Shem and Japheth are very different, but are, in their piety, the root of every ideal and humane tendency. The people and kingdom of China are a striking example of the immense power that lies in the blessings of filial piety; but at the same time a proof that filial piety, without being grounded in something deeper, cannot preserve even the greatest of peoples from falling into decay, like an old house, before their history ends.(Lange.)
In Shem and Japheth we have the representatives of action and contemplation. These types of character appear in the Christian Church in such as Peter and John, Martha and Mary. Nor is the dark type of evil wanting: there was a Ham in the family of Noah, and there was a Judas among the Apostles.
It was plainly the design and intention of God that mankind should not retain uniformity of manners and sentiments; but that by breaking them into separate communities, and by dispersing them over different countries and climates, they should be made to differ from each other by an indefinite diversity of customs and opinions. (Grinfield.)
These two verses form a connecting link between the preceding and the following passage. After the recital of the covenant comes naturally the statement, that by the three sons of Noah, duly enumerated, was the whole land overspread. This forms a fit conclusion to the previous paragraph. But the penman of these sentences had evidently the following paragraph in view. For he mentions that Ham is the father of Kenaan; which is plainly the preface to the following narrative. (Murphy.)
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Climate-Influences! Gen. 9:18-19.
(1) It is a remarkable fact that insects partake of the colours of the trees upon which they dwell. Some look so exactly like slender dead twigs covered with bark, that their insect nature can only be discovered by mere accident. Some resemble living things, and are green. Others resemble such as are decayed, and are brown. The wings of many put on the resemblance of dry and crumpled leaves; whilst those of others are a vivid green, in exact accordance with the plants they respectively inhabit.
(2) Although, in the torrid zone, we hardly ever meet with a single aboriginal species of plant or animal common to both hemispheres, yet the analogy of climate everywhere produces analogous organic forms. Thus, on surveying the feathered tribes of America we are not only struck by their singularity of shape or mode of life, but by the fact that they bear striking resemblance to the feathered tribes in Asia, Africa, and Australia.
(3) As with insects, so with man. He is not less affected by the place of his habitation on the earth. His face in colour answers more or less to the hue of the tree-trunks, etc.; therefore to understand any people thoroughly we must know something of the country in which they live. And as with the birds of all tropical landsthey bear a resemblance more or less to each other in shape and characteristicsso with the human race. The dwellers in temperate climes, however widely sundered by seas and mountain ranges, have more or less of analogy one to the other; and these adaptations and analogies of man to climate have one voice. They tell us of the Divine design and declaration in Gen. 9:18-19. They give us food for fruitful meditation in their folio volume,
which we may read, and read,
And read again, and still find something new,
Something to please, and something to instruct.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
7. Noahs Last Days (Gen. 9:18-28.)
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah: and of these was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard; 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 fathers nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest 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 Jehovah, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. 27 God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan 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.
(1) Noahs Progeny (Gen. 9:18-19).
(a) Cornfeld (AtD, 36): Genesis does not tell us where Noah and his family lived after the Flood, but only that the earth was repopulated by Noahs three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The chronicler regards Noah as the main link in the generations reaching to Abraham, and carefully notes that Ham, father of Canaan, is not of the same stock as Shem, the father of the Hebrews. It should be noted, however, that the emphasis continues to be on the Messianic Line, beginning with Shem and continuing through Noah to Abraham. Cornfeld again (AtD, 36): As we continue to read the genealogies, we note that the focus grows more and more narrow. The emphasis at the conclusion is on Shem, the ancestor of the Semites (see Gen. 10:21-30), which include all the sons of Eber who embraced the Hebrews, The final narrowing of the generations of Eber would come in the next chapter: read Gen. 11:16-26). (b) Of Shem, Ham, and Japheth it is said: of these was the whole earth overspread, This statement leaves us little room for doubt that Noah sired no other children than the three sons mentioned. (Of course again we have to consider the fact that in this text erets could be just as correctly translated land as earth.).
(2) Noahs Sin (Gen. 9:20-23). Noah began to be a husbandman, and planted a vineyard. A husbandman is a farmer, a tiller of the ground. Hence JB renders this line, Noah, a tiller of the soil, was the first to plant the vine. This could mean, without any rending of the text and context, that he was the first to plant a vineyard after the Flood. Two views of this incident have been rather common among Bible students: one is that the patriarch, having been the first to cultivate a vineyard was not aware of the intoxicating qualities of its fruit, and that his intoxication was the consequence of this ignorance. Thus Skinner (ICCG, 181): Noah is here introduced in an entirely different character, as the discoverer of the culture of the vine, and the first victim to immoderate indulgence in its fruit. The other view is simply that Noah, probably in an exuberance of joy over his deliverance and newly found freedom, imbibed a little too freely of the fermented juice of the grape, even to the point of intoxication and some of the shameful indecencies which not infrequently attend such overindulgence. The present writer can hardly convince himself that Noah was the first to plant a vineyard and hence was unaware of the intoxicating character of wine. It is inconceivable that husbandry and vine cultivation were unknown throughout all those centuries before the Flood. Whitelaw (PCG, 148): That Armenia is a vine-growing country is testified by Xenophon (Anab. iv, 4, 9). That the vine was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident from representations on the monuments, as well as from Scriptural allusions. The Egyptians said that Osiris, the Greeks that Dioriysos, the Romans that Saturn, first taught men the cultivation of the tree and the use of its fruits. . . . Though this is the first mention of wine in Scripture, it is scarcely possible that the natural process of fermentation for so many centuries escaped the notice of the enterprising Cainites, or even of the Sethites. . . . Since the sin of Noah cannot be ascribed to ignorance, it is perhaps right, as well as charitable, to attribute it to age and inadvertence. . . . But from whatever cause induced, the drunkenness of Noah was not entirely guiltless; it was sinful in itself, and led to further shame. The simple fact is that Noah slipped, lapsed, this one time only, we hope, from the path of virtue. He planted a vineyard and, doubtless through knowledge acquired in antediluvian experience, he made wine from the grapes which his vineyard produced. In spite of his lifelong piety, and his experience with the debauchery and viciousness of his former neighbors, recollections of which should have prompted him to restrain himself, he drank so much of the wine that he became intoxicated. Intoxication naturally leads to sensuality, carelessness, immodesty, and the like, and the old patriarch lay uncovered in his tent, that is, he shamefully exposed himself in some way in the presence of his sons. Ham, it seems, was the first to find him in this condition, and instead of being filled with pity on seeing his father in late age in such a maudlin state, laughed about it as if the whole thing were a lark, and rushed to tell his brothers, Shem and Japheth immediately came to the tent, took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, and walking backward placed it over their father without even looking on his nakedness. Thus did the other two brothers act with becoming modesty while at the same time protecting their fathers honor, whereas Ham had been guilty of a profane breach of filial piety and disregard for elders in general, which was an offense of the first magnitude among primitive and early historic peoples (cf. Exo. 20:12). (Noahs lapse in his old age is evidence that humankind was still a fallen race).
The fact should be re-emphasized here that the Bible pictures life just as it is. It is the only book in the world which portrays human character realistically. Not for one moment does it turn aside from the faithful record to conceal the weaknesses and derelictions of its great men: it pictures their lives just as they lived them. Biographers of men usually dwell glowingly on the virtues of those about whom they are writing, to the neglect of recording their faults. Not so with the Bible. No matter that Noah was perfect in his generations; no matter that he walked by faith; no matter that he was Gods chosen representative in the Messianic Line; he finally sinned, and that in his declining years. And the Bible does not attempt to conceal his fault. There is no false modesty in the Book of Books. It uses old-fashioned words to designate old-fashioned things. It is primarily the Book of Life.
(3) Noahs Prophecy (Gen. 9:24-27). We read that Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. Evidently he knew this by inspiration (or intuition?), and immediately uttered a series of terse prophetic statements which undoubtedly were inspired. We can hardly question this fact, because human history surely records, in broad outlines at least, the fulfillment of these pronouncements. (A word of caution here: I must be understood that the destinies of the peoples who sprang from the loins of Shem and Ham and Japheth were not foreordained to be what they were. Rather, these destinies were determined by the respective progenies themselves; however, they were foreknown to God and so could be communicated to Noah by Divine inspiration and thus disclosed to mankind long before they actually occurred. We must remember that foreknowledge does not necessarily imply foreordination, except with reference, of course, to the details of the Plan of Redemption. Obviously, in uttering these predictions Noah was not moved by personal resentment, but was acting simply as Gods mouthpiece. Prophecy has always been used by the Spirit to attest the truth of revelation.)
(a) Cursed be Canaan, A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Note that the dominant feature of this entire prophecy is the curse on Canaan, which not only stands first, but is repeated in the blessing on the two brothers. It seems evident that prophetic insight testified that Canaan would inherit the profane disposition of his father, Ham, and that the Canaanites would abundantly deserve the destiny foretold of them; also that the curse was general in its nature and hence included the entire posterity of Ham and Canaan (for which see Gen. 10:6-20). Note the phrase, a servant of servants, etc. This is the superlative degree, literally, the meanest slave. The curse simply means that the descendants of Canaan were doomed to enslavement to the other two branches of the family. This destiny seemingly was reversed when Nimrod and Mizraim founded Babylonia and Egypt respectively. But it was abundantly fulfilled in early antiquity when the Canaanites in Joshuas time were partly exterminated and partly reduced to abject slavery by the Israelites who belonged to the family of Shem, and those that remained were further reduced by Solomon (Jos. 9:23, 1Ki. 9:20-21). It was fulfilled later when the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Egyptians, all of whom belonged to the Line of Canaan, were reduced to subjection by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans, These peoples, the Canaanites included, all were obsessed with the gross sexual indulgences characteristic of the ancient Cult of Fertility, as described by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 1:18-32. It may be fulfilled too in the longstanding moral and spiritual (and cultural) backwardness of the South African peoples who perhaps more than any other have been forcibly reduced to abject slavery by Semitic, and more particularly Japhetic, nations. As a matter of fact, African slavery is one of the darkest blots on the whole history of mankind. The fact is that there is no moral ground on which any man can obtain a legitimate title to another mans person: this is true for the simple reason that one soul is worth as much as another in the sight of God and hence that Christ died for all men alike.
(b) Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, And let Canaan be his servant. To bless Yahweh is simply to praise Him. The blessing here must be indirectly a blessing on the Line of Shem, that is, in assuming the spiritual primacy of the Semites by virtue of their having Yahweh for their God. The second part of the prophecy was fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua, Saul, David and Solomon. By the time the Israelites were ready to enter Canaan under Joshua, the Canaanites by their grossly idolatrous and licentious religious practices had proved themselves vessels fit only for destruction (Jdg. 1:28; Jdg. 1:31; Jdg. 1:33; Gen. 15:13-16; Act. 7:6).
(c) God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. That is, make room for the one who spreads abroad. This part of the prophecy was simply a foretelling of the widespread diffusion and remarkable prosperity of the Japhetic (Aryan) peoples; as a matter of fact, the history of the human family is largely the record of this enlargement, geographically, politically, economically, and socially. Indeed the phenomenon is evident also in the extension of Biblical religion into all parts of the world. The descendants of Japheth pushed across Asia Minor into Europe, and moving thence both to the North and to the West they populated the European continent, ultimately finding their way to the shores of the Americas. Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean peoples are all of the Line of Japheth. And let him dwell in the tents of Shem. The fulfillment of this passage is obvious: certainly it occurred in the reception of the Gentiles into the duties, privileges, and rewards of Biblical religion, especially in the admission of the Gentiles into the Body of Christ (cf. Act. 10:44-48; Act. 11:15-18; Eph. 2:11-18; 1Co. 12:12-13). Smith and Fields (OTH, 443): Japheth has come to dwell in the tents of Shem as a result of the Semitic Jews rejection of their Messiah, Jesus. When this occurred the Japhetic Gentiles were given the gospel of God and entered into the spiritual relationship with God that the Jews (except for a believing remnant) forfeited: Rom. 11:11; Rom. 11:20-24. The last part of this Noahic prophecy, Let Canaan be his servant, was used for many years as a Divine warrant for the institution of African slavery. There is a great difference, however, between a positive command such as in Gen. 9:5-6, and an inspired prophecy. Even though Noah, looking into the future, may have foreseen the spiritual and cultural backwardness of many Hamitic peoples, still and all these words do not constitute a divine authorization of slavery. They should be looked upon as only a prophetic statement of what history shows to have been a fact.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
See Gen. 9:28-29.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(18) Ham is the father of Canaan.Though human life had thus begun again upon a firmer footing, yet evil and discord were soon to reappear, though in a milder form. No brother sheds a brothers blood, but in the next generation sin breaks forth afresh, and the human family is disunited thereby, the descendants of Canaan taking the place of the Cainiteswithout indeed, their striking gifts, but nevertheless as a race foremost in trade and commerce. After enumerating the three sons of Noah, we are told: Of more correctly, fromthem was the whole earth overspread, that is, peopled.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
PROPHECY OF NOAH, Gen 9:18-29.
The historical occasion of the remarkable prophecy uttered by Noah in regard to his sons is now given. The sin or error of Noah brings out the character of his sons, and gives rise to predictions which concern the whole family of mankind. This prediction, in style and occasion, is a fair sample of some Scripture prophecies. It has an historic cause, and relates first to immediate events. Compare, in these respects, the remarkable Messianic prophesies in Isaiah 7, 9. The immediate events, which concern the individuals involved in the transaction, are there regarded as typical of far more momentous events, involving their descendants in distant ages. The material and transitory are regarded as typical of the spiritual and eternal. The deep and wide spread correspondencies between the natural and supernatural, between the near and the distant, are so clear to the prophetic insight that the present and the future, the seen and unseen, seemed blended into a single picture. The prophet ever sees in the earthly, patterns of the heavenly.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
18. Sons of Noah Japheth was the eldest and Ham the youngest . See note on Gen 5:32.
Father of Canaan This clause is added in this place, and in Gen 9:22, because Noah’s prophetic curse lighted on the Canaanites, with whom the Hebrews were so familiar as a people accursed of God. It is, perhaps, a Mosaic addition to the original document.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the sons of Noah that went out from the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth, and Ham became the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah and of these three was the world populated.’
These sentences are preparing for the next sections. Firstly they are explaining that Ham has produced a son called Canaan (see next section) and secondly they are preparing for chapter 10, the table of nations. From the sons of Noah, the writer emphasises, the known world was populated. Thus extensive was the Flood and its effects.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Noah Curses Canaan Gen 9:18-27 gives us the story of Noah’s drunkenness and the curst that he placed upon Canaan. Noah planted a vineyard and drank of the wine and was drunk. His son Ham found Noah in his nakedness and went and told his two brothers who were outside. Shem and Japheth responded by laying a garment upon their shoulders and walked in backwards so as not to see his nakedness and covered their father Noah. When Noah awoke he cursed Canaan the son of Ham.
The Meaning of the Curse – It is a little difficult for us to understand why such a simply act invoked a curse upon his lineage. Commentators offer several suggestions. (1) Some scholars suggest that Shem went out and made fun of his father’s nakedness and this was his sin, using the phrase, “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without” to support this view (Josephus Antiquities 3.6.1, Matthew Henry, Keil-Delitzsch). [128] (2) Others go so far as to say that Shem lay with his father as an act of incest, or lay with his father’s wife, using the phrase “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him” to support this view. This phrase does say that Shem actually did something to his father; and the word “know” is used many other times in Scripture when describing a man “knowing” his wife sexually. Thus, some make the conclusion that incest was committed. (John Gill cites several ancient Jewish rabbis who held this view) [129] (3) I do not take either of these two views at this point in my studies. The Book of Jubilees does not give us any additional insight into this passage of Scriptures. Noah was a righteous man so that he could have known things by a supernatural word of knowledge.
[128] Matthew Henry, Genesis, in Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, New Modern Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Genesis 9:18-23; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 1, in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin, in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), comments on Genesis 9:18-25.
[129] John Gill, Genesis, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Genesis 9:22.
Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
Gen 9:19 Gen 9:19
[130] George Frederick Wright, “Ararat,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., c1915, 1939), in The Sword Project, v. 1.5.11 [CD-ROM] (Temple, AZ: CrossWire Bible Society, 1990-2008).
Gen 7:20-21, “Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth , both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:”
Gen 8:4, “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat .”
Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 Gen 9:21
[131] Jeff Herten writes, “As it circulates through the body, alcohol produces a mild dilation of blood vessels, especially in the skin. This produces the flushed face of the acutely intoxicated and may contribute to the large dilated veins seen on the cheeks and nose of many drunks…The dilation of skin blood vessels caused by alcohol may result in a prompt and dramatic heat loss as the warm blood, reaching the surface, radiates heat into the surrounding environment.” [Jeff Herten, An Uncommon Drunk: Revelations of a High-Functioning Alcoholic (Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse, 2006), 10-11.]
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 Gen 9:24 Gen 9:24
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:25
[132] Justin Martyr writes, “For another mystery was accomplished and predicted in the days of Noah, of which you are not aware. It is this: in the blessings wherewith Noah blessed his two sons, and in the curse pronounced on his son’s son. For the Spirit of prophecy would not curse the son that had been by God blessed along with [his brothers]. But since the punishment of the sin would cleave to the whole descent of the son that mocked at his father’s nakedness, he made the curse originate with his son.” ( Dialogue of Justin Martyr, chapter 139) See Justin Martyr, Dialogue of Justin Martyr, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.1: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, eds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, & A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, c1885, 1997), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 268.
Pro 10:1, “The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.”
Pro 10:5, “He that gathereth in summer is a wise son: but he that sleepeth in harvest is a son that causeth shame.”
Pro 19:26, “He that wasteth his father, and chaseth away his mother, is a son that causeth shame, and bringeth reproach.”
We see examples of this in Scriptures. When Solomon sinned, the Lord was angry with Solomon, but the Lord could not punish Solomon personally without bringing discredit upon the name of David, his father (1Ki 11:9-12). Therefore, the Lord took the kingdom from Solomon’s son. In the same sense, Noah could not punish his own son, without bringing discredit upon his own name; for it was Noah who raised and taught Ham.
1Ki 11:9-12, “And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son.”
Because of Josiah’s faith, the Lord also postponed the calamities that He would bring upon Judah during the days of Josiah, and brought them upon the nation during the reign of his son instead (2Ki 22:11-20).
We can see another example of this relationship in the form of a blessing passing between a father and a son in the story of David and Goliath, when King Saul rewarded David’s valor by making his father’s house free. King Saul had already become acquainted with David, who played harp in the king’s presence (1Sa 16:17-23), but in the story of David and Goliath, the king wanted to know the name of David’s father (1Sa 17:55-58). The king made this enquiry because he had promised to make the house of the father of the man that killed Goliath free (1Sa 17:25). Thus, the blessing passed upon David’s father when he slew Goliath.
1Sa 17:55-58, “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.”
1Sa 17:25, “And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel.”
This idea might also found in the voice of a woman who blessed the mother of the Lord Jesus (Luk 11:27).
Luk 11:27, “And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.”
The book of Proverbs also makes reference to this relationship between a father and a son (Pro 10:1; Pro 15:20; Pro 17:25; Pro 19:13).
Pro 10:1, “The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.”
Pro 15:20, “A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother.”
Pro 17:25, “A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him.”
Pro 19:13, “A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping.”
It is interesting to find a similar passage of Scripture in Gen 48:1-22 where Israel blessed Joseph’s two sons, his grandsons, before his death, rather than directly blessing his son Joseph.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:26
Gen 9:26 Comments For the Hebrews, the descendants of Shem, Noah’s blessing upon Shem, and prophecy of his dominion over the Canaanites comes to fulfillment during the conquest of Joshua when God gave Israel the Promised Land. At this time Israel subdued the Canannites according to the prophecy of Gen 9:26.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27
[133] John Gill footnotes “T. Hieros. Megillah, folio 71. 2. T. Bab. Megillah, fol. 9. 2. Bereshit Rabba, sect. 36. folio 32. 1.” John Gill, Genesis, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Genesis 9:27.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Noah’s Sin
v. 18. And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan.
v. 19. These are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earth overspread. v. 20. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard; v. 21. and he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. v. 22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. v. 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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 9:18
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, who are here again mentioned as the heads of the nations into which the family of man developed, the writer having described the important modifications made upon the law of nature and the covenant of grace, and being now about to proceed with the onward course of human history. The present section, extending to Gen 9:27, is usually assigned to the Jehovistic author (Tuch,Bleek, Kalisch, Colenso, Kuenen), though by Davidson it is ascribed to a so-called redactor, with the exception of the present clause, which is recognized as the Jehovist’s contribution to the story. The ground of this apportionment is the introduction of the name Jehovah in Gen 9:26 (q.v.), and certain traces throughout the paragraph of the style of writing supposed to be peculiar to the supplementer. And Ham is the father of Canaan. Kena’an, the depressed or low one; either the Lowlander or inhabitant of a tow coast country, as opposed to the loftier regions (Aram); from kana , to be low, depressed, in situation, as of land (Gesenius); or more probably the servile one in spirit (Furst, Murphy, Keil, Lange). The reason for the insertion of this notice here, and of the similar one in Gen 9:22, was obviously to draw attention to the circumstance, not “that the origin of Israel’s ascendancy and of Canaan’s degradation dates so far back as the family of the second founder of the human race,” as if the writer’s standpoint were long subsequent to the conquest (Kalisch), but that, “as Israel was now going to possess the land of Canaan, they might know that now was the time when the curse of Canaan and his posterity should take place” (Wilier).
Gen 9:19
These are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earthi.e. the earth’s population (cf. Gen 11:1; Gen 19:31)overspread. More correctly, dispersed themselves abroad. (LXX.): disseminatum est omne genus hominum (Vulgate).
Gen 9:20
And Noah began to be an husbandman. Literally, a man of the ground. Vir terroe (Vulgate); (LXX.); Chald; = vir colens terram; agriculturae dediturus. Cf. Jos 5:4, “a man of war;” 2Sa 16:7, “a man of blood;” Gen 46:32, “a man of cattle;” Exo 4:10, “a man of words.” And he planted a vineyard. So Murphy, Wordsworth, Kalisch. Keil, Delitzsch, and Lange regard ish ha’ Adamah, with the art; as in apposition to Noah, and read, “And Noah, the husbandman, began and planted a vineyard,” i.e. caepit plantare. Neither interpretation presupposes that husbandry and vine cultivation were now practiced for the first time. That Armenia is a wine-growing country is testified by Xenophon (‘Anab.,’ 4.4, 9). That the vine was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident from representations on the monuments, as well as from Scriptural allusions. The Egyptians say that Osiris, the Greeks that Dionysus, the Romans that Saturn, first taught men the cultivation of the tree and the use of its fruit.
Gen 9:21
And he drank of the wine. ; “perhaps so called from bubbling up and fermenting;” connected with (Gesenius). Though the first mention of wine in Scripture, it is scarcely probable that the natural process of fermentation for so many centuries escaped the notice of the enterprising Cainites, or even of the Sethites; that, “though grapes had been in use before this, wine had not been extracted from them” (Murphy); or that Noah was unacquainted with the nature and effects of this intoxicating liquor (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Keil, Lunge). The article before indicates that the patriarch was “familiar with the use and treatment” of the grape (Kalisch); and Moses does not say this was the first occasion on which the patriarch tasted the fermented liquor (Calvin, Wordsworth). And was drunken. The verb (whence shechar, strong drink, Num 28:7), to drink to the full, very often signifies to make oneself drunken, or simply to be intoxicated as the result of drinking; and that which the Holy Spirit here reprobates is not the partaking of the fruit of the vine, but the drinking so as to be intoxicated thereby. Since the sin of Noah cannot be ascribed to ignorance, it is perhaps right, as well as charitable, to attribute it to ago and inadvertence. Six hundred years old at the time of the Flood, he must have been considerably beyond this when Ham saw him overtaken in his fault, since Canaan was Ham’s fourth son (Gen 10:6), and the first was not born till after the exit from the ark (Gen 8:18). But from whatever cause induced, the drunkenness of Noah was not entirely guiltless; it was sinful in itself, and led to further shame. And he was uncovered. Literally, he uncovered himself. Hithpael of , to make naked, which more correctly indicates the personal guilt of the patriarch than the A.V; or the LXX; . That intoxication tends to sensuality cf. the cases of Lot (Gen 19:33), Ahasuerus (Est 1:10, Est 1:11), Belshazzar (Dan 5:1-6). Within his tent. (LXX.).
Gen 9:22
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness. Pudenda, from a root () signifying to make naked, from a kindred root to which () comes the term expressive of the nakedness of Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:7). The sin of Hamnot a trifling and unintentional transgression” (Von Bohlen)obviously lay not in seeing what perhaps he may have come upon unexpectedly, but
(1) in wickedly rejoicing in what he saw, which, considering who he was that was overcome with wine,”the minister of salvation to men, and the chief restorer of the world,”the relation in which he stood to Ham,that of father,the advanced age to which he had now come, and the comparatively mature years of Ham himself, who was “already more than a hundred years old,” should have filled him with sincere sorrow; “sed nunquam vino victum pattern filius risisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet” (Luther); and
(2) in reporting it, doubtless with a malicious purpose, to his brethren. And told his two brethren without. Possibly inviting them to come and look upon their father’s shame.
Gen 9:23
And Shem and Japheth took a garment. Literally, the robe, i.e. which was at hand (Keil, Lange); the simlah, which was an outer cloak (Deu 10:18; 1Sa 21:10; Isa 3:6, Isa 3:7), in which, at night, persons wrapped themselves (Deu 22:17). Sometimes the letters are transposed, and the word becomes salmah (cf. Exo 22:8; Mic 2:8). And laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not the nakedness of their father; thereby evincing “the regard they paid to their father’s honor and their own modesty (Calvin).
Gen 9:24
And Noah awoke from his wine. I.e. the effects of his wine (cf. 1Sa 1:14; 1Sa 25:37); (LXX.); “became fully conscious of his condition” (T. Lewis). And knew. By inspiration (Alford); more probably by making inquiries as to the reason of the simlah covering him. What his younger son. Literally, his son, the little one, i.e. the youngest son (Willet, Murphy, Wordsworth, T. Lewis, Alford, Candlish), or the younger son (Keil, Bush, Karisch); cf. Gen 5:32. Generally believed to have been Ham, though by many Canaan is understood (Aben Ezra, Theodoret, Procopius, Scaliger, Poole, Jamieson, Inglis, Lewis). Origen mentions a tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of Noah, and told it to his father. Wordsworth, following Chrysostom, believes Canaan may have been an accomplice. ‘The Speaker’s Commentary’ thinks it would solve the difficulty which attaches to the cursing of Canaan.
Gen 9:25
And he said. Not in personal resentment, since “the fall of Noah is not at all connected with his prophecy, except as serving to bring out the real character of his children, and to reconcile him to the different destinies which he was to announce as awaiting their respective races” (Candlish); but under the impulse of a prophetic spirit (Poole, Keil, Lange, Candlish, Murphy, and expositors generally), which, however, had its historical occasion in the foregoing incident. The structure of the prophecy is perfectly symmetrical, introducing, in three poetical verses,
(1) the curse of Canaan,
(2) the blessing of Shem, and
(3) the enlargement of Japheth, and in all three giving prominence to the doom of servitude pronounced upon the son of Ham.
Cursed. The second curse pronounced upon a human being, the first having been on Cain (Gen 4:11). Colenso notices that all the curses belong to the Jehovistic writer; but vide Gen 49:6, Gen 49:7, which Tuch and Bleek ascribed to the Elohist, though, doubtless in consequence of the “curse,” by Davidson and others it is now assigned to the Jehovist. That this curse was not an imprecation, but a prediction of the future subjection of the Canaanites, has been maintained (Theodoret, Venema, Willet), chiefly in consequence of its falling upon Canaan; but
(1) as the contrary “blessing” implies the inheritance of good in virtue of a Divine disposition to that effect, so does “cursing” import subjection to evil by the same Divine power; and
(2) if we eliminate the moral element from the doom of Canaan, which clearly referred to a condition of temporal servitude, there seems no reason why the language of Noah should not be regarded as a solemnly pronounced and Divinely guaranteed infliction; while
(3) as the curse is obviously aimed at the nations and peoples descending from the execrated person, it is not inconsistent to suppose that many individuals amongst those nations and peoples might attain to a high degree of temporal and spiritual prosperity.
Be Canaan.
(1) Not Ham, the father of Canaan (Arabic Version); nor
(2) all the sons of Ham, though concentrated in Canaan (Havernick, Keil, Murphy); but
(3) Canaan alone, though indirectly, through him, Ham also (Calvin, Bush, Kalisch, Lange, et alii).
For the formal omission of Ham many different reasons have been assigned.
(1) Because God had preserved him in the ark (Jewish commentators).
(2) Because if Ham had been mentioned all his other sons would have been implicated (Pererius, Lange).
(3) Because the sin of Ham was comparatively trifling (Bohlen).
For the cursing of Canaan instead of Ham, it has been urged
(1) That he was Ham’s youngest son, as Ham was Noah’s (Hoffman and Delitzsch); surely a very insufficient reason for God cursing any one!
(2) That he was the real perpetrator of the crime (Aben Ezra, Procopius, Poole, Jamieson, Lewis, &c.).
(3) That thereby the greatness of Ham’s sin was evinced (Calvin).
(4) That Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father’s impiety (Ambrose, Mercerus, Keil).
(5) That Noah foresaw that the Canaanites would abundantly deserve this visitation (Calvin, Wordsworth, Murphy, Kalisch, Lange).
We incline to think the truth lies in the last three reasons. A servant of servants. A Hebraism for the superlative degree; cf. “King of kings, “holy of holies, “the song of songs”. I.e. “the last even among servants” (Calvin); “a servant reduced to the lowest degree of bondage and degradation” (Bush); “vilissima servituts pressus” (Sol. Glass); “a most base and vile servant” (Ainsworth); “a working servant” (Chaldee); “the lowest of slaves” (Keil); (LXX.), which “conveys the notion of permanent hereditary servitude” (Kalisch). Keil, Hengstenberg, and Wordsworth see an allusion to this condition in the name Canaan (q.v; supra), which, however, Lange doubts. Shall he be to his brethren. A prophecy which was afterwards abundantly fulfilled, the Canaanites in the time of Joshua having been partly exterminated and partly reduced to the lowest form of slavery by the Israelites who belonged to the family of Shem (Jos 9:23), those that remained being subsequently reduced by Solomon (1Ki 9:20, 1Ki 9:21); while the Phenicians, along with the Carthaginians and Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans (Keil).
Gen 9:26
And he saidnot “Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be Shem” (Jamieson), as might have been anticipated (this, equally with the omission of Ham’s name, lifts the entire patriarchal utterance out of the region of mere personal feeling), butBlessed when applied to God signifies an ascription of praise (cf. Psa 144:15; Eph 1:3); when applied to man, an invocation of good (cf. Gen 14:19, Gen 14:20; Psa 128:1; Heb 7:6)be the Lord Godliterally, Jehovah, Elohim of Shem (cf. Gen 24:27); Jehovah being the proper personal name of God, of whom it is predicated that he is the Elohim of Shem; equivalent to a statement not simply that Shem should enjoy “a rare and transcendent,” “Divine or heavenly,” blessing (Calvin), or “a most abundant blessing, reaching its highest point in the promised Seed” (Luther); but that Jehovah, the one living and true God, should be his God, and that the knowledge and practice of the true religion should continue among his descendants, with, perhaps, a hint that the promised Seed should spring from his loins (OEeolampadius, Willet, Murphy, Keil, &c.)of Shem. In the name Shem (name, renown) there may lie an allusion to the spiritual exaltation and advancement of the Semitic nations (vide Gen 5:32). And Canaan shall be his servant. = (Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic), i.e. the two brothers (Delitzsch), their descendants (Knobel, Keil), Shem and Jehovah (Bush); or more probably, as a collective singular, i.e. Shem, including his descendants (LXX; ; Kalisch, Lange, Murphy).
Gen 9:27
God. Elohim. If Gen 9:18-27 are Jehovistic (Tuch, Bleek, Colenso, et alii), why Elohim? Is this a proof that the Jehovistic document was revised by the Elohistic author, as the presence of Jehovah in any so-called Elohistic section is regarded as an interpolation by the supplementer? To obviate this inference Davidson assigns Gen 9:20-27 to his redactor. But the change of name is sufficiently explained when we remember that “Jehovah, as such, never was the God of Japheth’s descendants, and that the expression would have been as manifestly improper if applied to him as it is in its proper place applied to Shem”. Shall enlarge Japheth. ; literally, shall enlarge or make room for the one that spreads abroad; or, “may God concede an ample space to Japheth” (Gesenius). “Wide let God make it for Japheth” (Keil). “God give enlargement to Japheth” (Lange). So LXX; Vulgate, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic. The words form a paronomasia, both the verb and the noun being connected with the root , to spread abroad; Hiph; to cause to lie open, hence to make room for,and refer to the widespread diffusion and remarkable prosperity of the Japhetic nations. The familiar interpretation which renders “God will persuade Japheth, the persuadable,” i.e. incline his heart by the gospel so that he may dwell in the tents of Shem (Junins, Vatablus, Calvin, Willet, Ainsworth), is discredited by the facts
(1) that the verb never means to persuade, except in a bad sense (cf. 1Ki 22:20), and
(2) that in this sense it is never followed by , but always by the accusative. The fulfillment of the prophecy is apparent from the circumstance that “praeter Europam (wide, extensive) “maximam Asiae pattern, totum demique novum orbem, veluti immensae maguitudinis auctarium, Japheto posterique ejus in perpetuam possessionem obtigisse” (Fuller, ‘ Sac. Miscel; lib. 2. c. 4, quoted by Glass); cf. Gen 10:2-5, in which Japheth is given as the progenitor of fourteen peoples, to which are added the inhabitants of the lands washed by the sea. The expansive power of Japheth “refem not only to the territory and the multitude of the Japhethites, but also to their intellectual and active faculties. The metaphysics of the Hindoos, the philosophy of the Greeks, the military prowess of the Romans, and the modern science and civilization of the world are due to the race of Japheth” (Murphy). And henot Elohim (Philo; Theodoret, Onkelos, Dathe, Baumgarten, et alii), which
(1) substantially repeats the blessing already given to Shem, and
(2) would introduce an allusion to the superiority of Shem’s blessing in what the context requires should be an unrestricted benediction of Japheth; but Japheth (Calvin, Rosenmller, Delitzsch, Keil, Lange, Kaliseh, Murphy, Wordsworth, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’)shall dwell. , from , to dwell; used of God inhabiting the heavens (Isa 57:15), dwelling in the bush (Deu 30:16), residing, or causing his name to dwell, in the tabernacle (Deu 12:11); hence supposed to favor the idea that Elohim is the subject; but it was as Jehovah (not Elohim) that God abode between the cherubim (Exo 40:34). In the tents of Shem. Not the tents of celebrity (Gesenius, Vater, Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel), but the tents of the Shemitic races, with allusion not to their subjugation by the Japhethites (Clericus, Von Bohlen, Bochart), which would not be in keeping with the former blessing pronounced upon them (Murphy), but to their subsequent contiguity to, and even commingling with, but especially to their participation in the religious privileges of, the Shemites (the Fathers, Targum Jonathan, Hisronymus, Calvin, Keil, Lange, ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ Murphy, Candlish). The fulfillment of the prophecy is too obvious to call for illustration. And Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:28, Gen 9:29
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. I.e. to the fifty-eighth year of the life of Abram, and was thus in all probability a witness of the building of the tower of Babel, and of the consequent dispersion of mankind. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died. Tuch, Bleek, and Colenso connect these verses with Gen 9:17, as the proper continuation of the Elohist’s work.
HOMILETICS
Gen 9:20-29
The future unveiled.
I. A PAGE FROM HUMAN HISTORY. The prominent figure an old manalways an object of interest, as one who has passed through life’s vicissitudes, and worthy of peculiar honor, especially if found walking in the paths of righteousness and peace; an old saint who had long been distinguished for the elevation of his piety, who had long maintained his fidelity to God in the midst of evil times, who had just enjoyed a special deliverance at the hand of God, and who up to the period referred to in our text had brought neither stain upon his piety nor cloud upon his name; the second head of the human family, and in a manner also the second head of the Church of God; an old disciple, who probably had seen Seth, the son of Adam, and walked with Enoch, and spoken with Methuselah, and who lived, as the Scripture tells us, to the days of Abram; clearly one of the most distinguished figures that, looking back, one is able to detect upon the canvas of time. Well, in connection with this venerable patriarch we learn
1. That he engaged in a highly honorable occupation.
(1) It was to his credit that he had an occupation. Being an old man, he might have reasoned that his working days were done, and that the evening of life might as well be spent in leisure and meditation. Having three stalwart sons, he might have deemed it proper to look to them for aid in his declining years. And knowing himself to be an object of Heaven’s peculiar care, he might have trusted God would feed him without his working, since he had saved him without his asking. But from all these temptationsto idleness, to dependence, to presumptionNoah was delivered, and preferred; as all good Christians should do, to labor to the last, working while it is called today, to depend upon themselves rather than their friends and neighbors, and to expect God’s assistance rather when they try to help themselves than when they leave it all to him. Then,
(2) The calling he engaged in was an honest one. He was a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (vide Exposition on vine cultivation). God’s people should be careful in selecting honest trades and professions for themselves and their children (Rom 12:17). No social status or public estimation, or profitable returns can render that employment honorable which, either in its nature or in the manner of its carrying or, violates the law of God; while that calling has a special glory in itself and a special value in the sight of Heaven which, however humble and unremunerative, respects the rights of men and the rules of God.
2. That he indulged in a perfectly legitimate gratification. “He drank of the wine.” There was nothing wrong in Noah eating of the ripe grapes which grew upon his vines, or drinking of their juice when transformed into wine (cf. Deu 25:4; 1Co 9:7). The sinfulness of making fermented liquors cannot be established so long as fermentation is a natural process for the preservation of the produce of the grape, and Scripture, in one set of passages, speaks of its beneficial influence upon man’s physical system (Jdg 9:13; Psa 104:15; Pro 31:6; 1Ti 5:23), and God himself employs it as a symbol of the highest and choicest blessings, both temporal and spiritual (Gen 27:28, Gen 27:37; Pro 9:2; Isa 25:6; Mat 26:28, Mat 26:29), and Christ made it at the marriage feast of Cana (Joh 2:9, Joh 2:10). Nor is the drinking of wines and other fermented liquors condemned in Scripture as a violation of the law of God. That there are special seasons when abstinence from this as well as other gratifications of a physical kind is a duty (cf. Le Gen 10:9; Jdg 13:4, Jdg 13:14; Eze 44:21; Dan 1:5, Dan 1:8, Dan 1:16; Rom 14:21; 1Co 10:28), and that it is competent to any Christian, for the sake of Iris weaker brethren, or as a means of advancing his own spiritual life, or for the glory of God, to renounce his liberty in respect of drinks, no intelligent person will doubt. But that total abstinence is imperatively required of every one is neither asserted in Scripture nor was it taught by the example of Christ (Mat 11:19), and to enforce it upon Christian men as a term of communion is to impose on them a yoke of bondage which Christ has not sanctioned, and to supplant Christian liberty by bodily asceticism.
3. That he fell beneath a pitifully sad humiliation.
(1) He drank to the extent of intoxication. Whatever extenuations may be offered for the action of the patriarch, it cannot be regarded in any other light than a sin; Considering the age he had come to, the experience he had passed through, the position which he occupied as the head of the race and the father of the Church, he ought to have been specially upon his guard. While permitting man a moderate indulgence in the fruit of the vine, the word of God especially condemns the sin of drunkenness (cf. Pro 23:20; Isa 5:11, Isa 5:22; Luk 21:34; Rom 13:13; 1Co 5:11; 1Co 6:10; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:18; 1Th 5:8).
(2) His immodesty. The veil of modesty in which God designs that every sinful human being should be wrapped should be jealously guarded from infringement by any action either of ourselves or others.
Lessons:
1. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1Co 10:12). Remember Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Peter.
2. “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). There is scarcely a sin to which intoxication may not lead; there is no infallible cure for drunkenness but being filled with the Spirit.
3. “Be sure thy sin will find thee out” (Num 32:23). “There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid that shall not be known.”
II. A REVELATION OF HUMAN CHARACTER. Oil the threshold of the new world, like the Lord Jesus Christ in the opening of the gospel dispensation (Luk 2:35), the patriarch Noah appears to have been set for the fall and rising again of many, and for a sign to be spoken against that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed. All unconsciously to him his vine-planting and wine-drinking become the occasion of unveiling the different characters of his sons in respect of
1. Filial piety, which Shem and Japheth remarkably displayed, but of which Ham, the youngest son, appears to have been destitute. There was nothing sinful in Ham’s having witnessed what should never have been exposed to view, and there is no reason to credit any of the idle rabbinical legends which allege that Ham perpetrated a particular outrage upon his father; but Ham was manifestly wanting in that filial reverence and honor which were due to his aged parent, in that he gazed with delight upon the melancholy spectacle of his father’s shame- in singular contrast to the respectful and modest behavior of Shem and Japheth, who “went with their faces backward,” so that “they saw not their father’s nakedness.”
2. Tender charity. In addition to the mocking eye which gloated over the patriarch’s infirmity, there was present in the heart of Ham an evil and malicious spirit, which led him to inflict another and a severer indignity upon his father’s fame. The faults of even bad men are required by religion to be covered up rather than paraded in public view. Much more the indiscretions, failings, and sins of good men. Most of all the faults of a father. But, alas, instead of sorrowing for his father’s overthrow, Ham obviously took pleasure in it; instead of charitably trying to excuse the old man, nay, without even waiting to ascertain whether an explanation of his conduct might be possible, he appears to have put the worst construction on it; instead of doing what he could to hide his father’s sin and shame, he rushes forth and makes it known to his brothers. But these brothers, with another spirit, without offering any apology for their father’s error, perhaps instinctively perceiving it to be altogether unjustifiable, take the first loose garment they can find, and, with a beautiful modesty as well as a becoming piety, casting it around their shoulders, enter their father’s presence with their faces backward, and cover up his prostrate form. Let the incident remind us
(1) That if nothing can extenuate a father’s falling into sin, much more can nothing justify a son for failing in respect towards his father.
(2) That it is a sure sign of depravity in a child when he mocks at a parent’s infirmities and publishes a parent’s faults.
(3) That filial piety ever seeks to extenuate and to hide rather than to aggravate and blaze abroad a parent’s weaknesses and sins.
(4) That children in the same family may be distinguished by widely different dispositions.
(5) That a son may have pious parents and experience many providential mercies for their sakes, and yet be at heart a child of the devil.
(6) That that which makes one son differ from another in the same family is Divine grace; and
(7) that the characters of children, and of men in general, are oftentimes revealed at the most unexpected times, and by the most improbable events.
III. A DISCLOSURE OF HUMAN DESTINY. Awaking from his wine, the patriarch became aware of what had taken place. Discerning in the conduct of his sons an indication of divergence in their characters, recognizing in their different characters a repetition of what had taken place at the commencement of the first era of the world’s history, viz; the division of mankind into a holy and a wicked line, foreseeing also, through the help of inspiration, the development of the world’s population into three different tribes or races, he foretells, acting in all under the Spirit’s guidance, the future destinies that should await them. His utterance takes the form of a prediction, in which he declares
1. The degradation of Canaan. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.
(1) So far as Ham was concerned this judgment was severe, as being imposed upon his youngest and probably his best beloved son; appropriatehe for whose sake it had been inflicted having been his father’s youngest son; merciful, as falling not on all his race, but only upon one son and his descendants. N.B.God’s judgments upon sinful men are always proportioned in severity to the guilt which brings them, adjusted to the natures of the sins for which they come, and mixed with mercy in the experience of the persons on whom they fall.
(2) So far as Canaan was concerned the doom of servitude was sovereignty imposed. There is no evidence that Canaan was at all connected with the incident that happened in his grandfather’s tent. That the penalty of his father’s offence was made to fall on him of all his father’s sons was in virtue of that high prerogative which belongs to God alone of assigning to men and nations their lots on earth (cf. Psa 75:7; Isa 41:2; Dan 5:19; Dan 4:35; Act 17:26). Richly merited. Whether Canaan had begun by this time to display any of the dispositions of his father cannot certainly be known; but in after years, when the prophecy was nearing its accomplishment, it is well known that the peculiar sins for which the Canaanites were destroyed or subjected to bondage were allied to those which are referred to in the text (vide Le Gen 18:27). Exactly fulfilled by the subjugation of the land of Canaan under Joshua and David, though here it should be noted that the enslavement of the African Negro, who, though a Hamite, is not a Canaanite, was a daring defiance of those limits within which the supreme Judge had confined the sentence pronounced upon the Hamite race. Mercifully cancelled by the later promise which was given to Abraharh, and is now fulfilled in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christof a seed-in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed (Gen 22:18).
2. The exaltation of Shem. “Blessed be Jehovah, the Elohim of Shem,” &c; in which description was the promise of a threefold exaltation.
(1) To supremacy in the Church, as being possessed of the knowledge of the true religion, as being enriched with the fullness of blessing that is in Jehovah Elohim, as being the Divinely-appointed medium through which the first promise of the woman’s seed was to be fulfilled, and he was to come whose name should be above every name.
(2) To dominion in the world. In virtue of the religious ascendancy conferred upon him, Shem was to be possessed of power to influence other nations for good, and in particular to receive into his service, for education as well as for assistance, the descendants of Canaan.
(3) To renown throughout all time. As much as this perhaps is hinted at in the name Shem; and to this day the glory which encircled the Shemitie nations of antiquity has not faded, but continues to shine down the centuries with undiminished luster.
3. The enlargement of Japheth. “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.”
A promise of
1. Territorial expansion. While the Shemite tribes should remain in a manner concentrated in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Japhethites should spread themselves abroad westward as the pioneers of civilization.
2. Spiritual enrichment, by being brought ultimately to share in the religious privileges and blessings of the Shemitesa prediction which has been abundantly fulfilled by the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church.
3. Civilizing influence. As Canaan was subjected to Shem in order, while he served, to be instructed in the faith of his master, so does he seem to have been placed beneath the sway of Japheth, that Japheth might lead him forth to a participation of the peculiar blessings which he has been commissioned to bestow upon the other nations of the earth.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen 9:18-29
The threefold distribution of the human race
into the Shemitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic families. The fall of Noah was through wine; not, indeed, a forbidden product of the earth, but, like the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, representing a tremendous responsibility.
I. THE FERTILITY OF SIN. It was out of drunkenness that the widespread curse of the Hamitic nations came forth. And the drunkenness is closely connected with other sins
(1) shameful degradation both of father and son,
(2) alienation of brethren, and
(3) human slavery.
What a picture of the forthcoming results of intemperance and self-indulgence!
II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE BLESSING AND THE CURSE IN THEIR WORKING OUT. Noah’s prediction of the blessing on Shem and Japheth and the curse upon Ham may be taken as an outline of the religious history of the world.
1. The Shemitic races are the source of religious light to the rest. “Blessed be the Lord God of Slain.” “Jehovah,“ the Shemitic revelation, is the foundation of all other.
2. The Japhetic races are the great colonizers and populators of the world, overflowing their own boundaries, dwelling in the tents of Shem, both as inquirers after Shemitic light and in friendly co-operation with Shemitic civilization.
3. The Hamitic races are servants of servants unto their brethren, partly by their degradation, but partly also by their achievements. The Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Canaanitish races, although by no means always in a lower political state than the rest of the world, have yet been subdued by Japhetic and Shemitic conquerors, and handed down their wealth and acquirements to the Northern, Western, and Eastern world.
III. THE RENOVATION OF THE EARTH UNDER THE NEW COVENANT. After the Flood Noah lived the half-week of centuries, and thus laid firmly the foundations of a new earth. Yet, prolonged as was that life of him who had “found grace in the eyes of the Lord,“ it came to an end at last. He died. The one became the three.
1. The blessing handed on. The type of rest and comfort was spread through the redeemed earth. And from henceforth we have to deal not with the small beginnings of the rescued race, but with the vast multitude of human beings.
2. New sphere of trial. Under the light of the new covenant again the new race were placed upon their trial, that again the redeeming mercy of him who willeth not the death of his creatures may be made manifest in the midst of the teeming earth, with its threefold humanity, spreading eastward, westward, northward, and southward.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 9:18. The sons of Noah, &c. Japheth, though named last, was, as we have before observed, the eldest of Noah’s sons, as appears from ch. Gen 10:21. Shem, whom some would make the eldest, appears, says Shuckford, to have been two years younger than Japheth; for Noah was five hundred years old at the birth of his eldest son, that is, a hundred years before the flood. See Gen 5:32 compared with Gen 7:6. But Shem was but a hundred years old two years after the flood, namely, at the birth of Arphaxad, ch. Gen 11:10. and consequently he must have been two years younger than Noah’s first-born. Canaan, the son of Ham, is mentioned here to introduce the following account, in which the origin of that people is marked out, who became so detestable afterwards, as to be destroyed for their enormities by the hand of the Israelites, under the immediate direction of God.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
SECOND SECTION
The Revelation of Sin and of Piety in Noahs FamilyThe Curse and the Blessing of NoahThe twofold Blessing, and the Blessing in the Curse itself.
Gen 9:18-29
18And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19These are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20And Noah began10 to be a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard; 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23And 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 fathers nakedness. 24And Noah awoke from his wine [his sleep of intoxication], and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants11 shall he be unto his brethren. 26And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem [Jehovah, God of the name, or who preserves the name]; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth12 [one who spreads abroad], and he shall dwell13 in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. The Significance of this Jehovistic Section. This second event in the life of Noah after the flood is evidently of the highest meaning; as was the first, namely, Noahs offering and Gods blessing and covenant. In the first transaction there are delineated the ground-features of the new constitution of the earth, as secured by the covenant of God with the pious Noah. In the present Section we learn the advance of culture, but we recognize also the continuance of sin in the new human race; still, along with the earlier contrast between piety and perverseness, there comes in now the new contrast of a blessed life of culture as compared with the religious life of a divine cultus, or worship. In what Noah says of his sons, we read the ground-forms of the new state, and of the world-historical partition of mankind. In Knobels representation of it, this higher significance of the Section is wholly effaced. In the curse upon Canaan (according to this view), and in his appointment to servitude, the Jehovist would give an explanation of the fact, that the Canaanites were subjugated by the Hebrews, and that Phnician settlers among the Japhethites14 appear to have had a similar fate. But that the curse was pronounced upon Canaan, and not upon Ham, was because other Hamitic nations, such as the Egyptians, etc., were not in the same evil case. Still, it is not Canaan, but Ham himself, who is set forth as the shameless author of the guilt, (?) because the writer would refer certain shameless usages of the Hamitic nations to their first ancestor. Now, on the simple supposition of the truth of the prediction, and of the connection between the guilt of the ancestor, and the corruption of his descendants, this construction must fall to the ground. Knobel cites it as an ancient view, that the cursings of those who are distinguished as men of God, have power and effect as well as their blessings.
2. Gen 9:19. By them was the whole earth overspread.A main point of our narration. The second event in the life of Noah after the flood shows us the germs for the future development of the human race in a threefold direction, which is prefigured in the character of his three sons. To this end the repetition of their names. The mention of Canaan introduces the mention of the land in the following verse, as used for the inhabitants of the land; as in Gen 10:25; Gen 11:1, and other passages in which cities and lands are frequently named instead of their population. Keil.
3. Gen 9:20-21. Noahs Work, his Indulgence and his Error. The translation: and Noah began to be a husbandman is rightly set aside by Delitzsch and Keil. The word for husbandman has the article, and is, therefore, in apposition with Noah. Noah, as husbandman, began to plant a vineyard. The agriculture that had been interrupted by the flood, he again carries on, and makes it more complete by means of the new culture of the vine. Armenia, where he landed with the ark, is an anciently known vine-land. The ten thousand (Xen., Anab. 4, 4, 9) found in Armenia old and well flavored wines: even at this day the vine grows there, producing wine of great excellence, even at the height of four thousand feet above the level of the sea (Ritter: Geography, x. p. 554). That the culture of the vine came from Asia is well known. The Greek myth ascribes it to Dyonysus or Bacchus, representing it, sometimes, as derived from the Indians, and again, as belonging to the Phrygians, who were related to the Armenians (Diod. Sic. 362; Strabo, 10). Knobel. The story designates a hill on the northwest, adjacent to the Great Ararat, and furnishing the means of its ascent, as the region where Noah set out his vine-plants. The village of Arguri (Agorri), which in 1840 was destroyed in an eruption of Ararat, stood upon the place referred to. Frequent projections of stones, and outpouring streams of lava and mud, have, in the course of time, destroyed all the fertile soil of Ararat (K. Koch, in Pipers Year Book, 1852, p. 28). Delitzsch. The wine-garden of Noah is a mild reflex of paradise in the world of the fallen human race; and this enjoyment, in its excessively sinful use, to which Noah led the way, although he was not aware of its effect, has become a reflex of Adams enjoyment of the tree of knowledge; with this difference, however, that Noah erred in ignorance, and not in the form of conscious transgression. Intoxication by wine makes men lax in respect to sexual sin; and this connection is gently indicated in the fact that Noah, as he lay unguarded in his tent, exposed himself contrary to the law of modesty. In the error of the father there reveals itself the character of the sons.
4. Gen 9:22-23. The Behavior of the Sons. Hams conduct was, at first, a sin of omission. He saw the nakedness (the shame) of his father, and neither turned away his eyes nor covered him; then he told it to his brethren without, and this was his sin of commission. His behavior had the character not merely of lustful feeling, but of utter shamelessness; whereas the act of the two brothers presents a beautifully vivid image of delicacy, being at the same time an act of modesty and of piety. Reverence, piety, and chastity, are, in children, the three foundations of a higher life; whereas in impiety and sensual associations, a lower tendency reveals itself. Out of the virtues and the vices of the family come the virtues and the vices of nations, and of the world. At the same time, the manner in which the two sons treat the case, presents a charming image of prudence and quick decision. They seize the first best robe that comes to hand, and that was the , spread it out, and as they go backward with averted faces, lay it upon the nakedness of their father.
5. Gen 9:24-29. Noahs Curse and Blessing. His end.And Noah awoke from his wine; that is, the intoxication from wine (see 1Sa 1:14; 1Sa 25:37).And knew.This seems to suppose that his sons had told him, which, however, may have been occasioned by his asking about the robe that covered him. The whole proceeding, however, must have come to light, and that, too, to his own humiliation.His younger son (literally, his son, the little, or the less; see Gen 5:32).The effect upon him of the account is an elevated prophetic state of soul, in which the language of the seer takes the form of poetry.Cursed be Canaan.The fact that he did not curse the evil-doer himself, but his son, is explained away, according to Origen, in a Hebrew Midrash, which says that the young Canaan had first seen his grandfather in this condition, and told it to his fatherclearly an arbitrary exegesis. According to Hvernik and Keil, all the sons of Ham were included in the curse, but the curse of Ham was concentrated on Canaan. Keil and Hengstenberg find, moreover, a motive in the name , which does not mean, originally, a low country, but the servile. Ham gave to his son the name of obedience, a thing which he himself did not practise. Hengstenberg supposes that Canaan was already following his fathers footsteps in impiety and wickedness. According to Hofmann and Delitzsch, Canaan had the curse imposed upon him because he was the youngest son of Ham (Gen 10:6), as Ham was the youngest son of Noah. The great sorrow of heart which Ham had occasioned to his father was to be punished in the suffering of a similar experience from his own youngest son. Rightly does Keil reject this. The exposition of Knobel we have already cited; according to it the later condition of the Canaanites was only antedated in the prophecy of Noah. Before all things must we hold fast to this, that the language of Noah is an actual prophecy; and not merely an expression of personal feeling. That the question has nothing to do with personal feeling is evident from the fact, that Ham was not personally cursed. According to the natural relations, the youngest grandchildren would be, in a special manner, favorites with the grandfather. If now, notwithstanding this, Noah cursed his grandchild, Canaan, it can only he explained on the ground that in the prophetic spirit he saw into the future, and that the vision had for its point of departure the then present natural state of Canaan. We may also say, that Hams future was contained in the future of Canaan; the future of the remaining Hamites he left undecided, without curse and without blessing, although the want of blessing was a significant omen. Had, however, Noah laid the curse on Ham, all the sons of Ham would have been denoted in like manner with himself; even as now it is commonly assumed that they were, though without sufficient ground (see Delitzsch, p. 281). There is no play upon the name Canaan, as upon the name Japhetha thing which is to be noted. But that in the behavior of Canaan Noah had a point of departure for his prophecy, we may well assume with Hengstenberg.A servant of servants; that is, the lowest of servants. If the language had had in view already the later extermination of the Canaanites, it must have had a different style. The form of the expression, therefore, testifies to the age of the prophecy. We must also bear in mind, that the relation of servant in this case denotes no absolute relation in the curse, or any developed slave relation, any more than the relation of service which was imposed upon Esau in respect to Jacob. There even lies in it a hidden blessing. The common natures must, of themselves, take a position of inferiority; through subordination to the nobler character are they saved, in the discipline and cultivation of the Spirit.Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem.The blessing upon Shem has the form of a doxology to Jehovah, whereby, as Luther has remarked, it is distinguished as a most abundant blessing, which finally reaches its highest point in the promised seed. If Jehovah is the God of Shem, then is Shem the recipient and the heir of all the blessings of salvation which God, as Jehovah, procures for humanity. Keil.And Canaan shall be his servant.The word (regularly ) is taken by Gesenius as a poetical expression for ; Delitzsch refers it, as plural, to both brothersKeil and Knobel to their descendants. The descendants, however, are represented in the ancestor, and, therefore, the explanation of Gesenius gives the only clear idea.God shall enlarge Japheth, [or, as Lange renders it], God give enlargement to the one who spreads abroad.In the translation we retain the play upon the word, and the explanation of the name Japheth. Keil explains the word (meaning literally, to make room, to give space for outspreading) as metaphorical. To make room is equivalent to the bestowment of happiness and prosperity. It must be observed, however, that the name Shem, and the blessing of Shem, denotes the highest concentration; whilst in opposition to this the name Japheth and the blessing of Japheth, denotes the highest expansion, not only geographically, but also in regard to the spread of civilization through the earth, and its conquest both outwardly and intellectually. This is the spiritual mission of Japhethism to this daynamely, the mental conquest of the world. The culture life of Japheth, as humanitarian, scientific, stands in harmonious contrast with the cultus, or religionism, of Shem. Therefore, too, must Japheths blessing come from Elohim.And he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.The words, he shall dwell, are by some (Onkel, Dathe, Baumgarten) referred to Elohim. But this had already been expressed in the blessing of Shem, and had therefore nothing to do with the blessing of Japheth. What is said relates to Japheth; and that, too, neither in the sense that the Japhethites shall settle among the Shemites, or that they shall conquer them in their homes (Clericus, Von Bohlen, and others), but that Japheths dwelling in the tents of Shem shall be in the end his uniting with him in religious communion (Targum Jonathan, Hieronymus, Calvin, and others). The opposite interpretation (Michaelis, Gesenius, De Wette, Knobel, and others), which explains Shem here () as meaning literally name, or fame (dwell in the tents of renown), appears to have proceeded from a misapprehension of the prophetic significance of the language. To dwell in the tents of any one, Knobel holds, cannot mean religious communion. That would be true, if the one referred to had not immediately before been denoted as an observer of the true religion. That the Japhethites, that is, the Greeks, early dwelt in the tents of renown, is, in this respect, a matter by itself, which had already been set forth in Japheths own blessing, as implied in what is said of his expansion. As the brothers, whatever contrast there might have been in their characters, had been one in their piety towards their father, so must their posterity become one in this, that they shall finally exchange with each other their respective blessingsin other words, that Japheth shall bring into the tents of Shem what he has won from the world, and, in return for it, share in the blessing of the Namethe name Jehovah, or the true religion.And Noah lived.In the Armenian legend, Arnojoten, in the plain of the Araxes, has the name of his place of burial. With the death of Noah, the tenth member of the Genealogical table, ch. v., finds its conclusion.
[Note on the Curse of Canaanthe supposed Curse of Hamthe Blessing op Shem and Japheth. Gen 9:24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. , LXX. , became fully conscious of his condition. Comp. 1Co 15:24. , knew, became sensible of. It is not the word that would have been employed had he learned it from the information of others. It denotes intelligenceby the eye, as Isa 6:9,by the touch, Gen 19:33,experience by any sense, Deu 11:2,or by the exercise of the mind as following such experience, Jdg 13:21. Had done unto him, . This is, something more than an omission or a neglect. The word is a very positive one. Something unmistakable, something very shameful had been done unto the old man in his unconscious state, either the stripping off his robe, or some act of abuse or mockery of such a nature that it becomes manifest to him immediately on his recovery. It may be remarked, too, that may more properly be rendered, indefinitely, a thing which, or something which, his youngest son had done unto him. But who was the culprit? Of this, too, the patriarch appears to have been immediately sensible, or to have immediately inferred it from something he must have known of the supposed perpetrator. He seems to have had no doubt. Now Ham had done nothing to his father. On discovery of his state he hastens to his brothers, it may be with the same filial intentions that they more promptly carried out. The sight appears to have been accidental and involuntary. The word is , he saw, not , he looked at, spectavit, , gazed at, implying interest, emotion. There is in the account no intimation of any of that scoffing demeanor that some commentators have so gratuitously charged upon him. He saw and told his brothers. At all events, his fault, if there was one, was simply an omission, which seems to fall altogether short of the force of the words , had done unto him, regarded, too, as something obvious or immediately discoverable by the one who had suffered the indignity. There seems to be a careful avoidance of particularity. The language has an euphemistic look, as though intimating something too vile and atrocious to be openly expressed. Thus regarded, everything seems to point to some wanton act done by the very one who is immediately named in the severe malediction that follows: Cursed be Canaan. He was the youngest son of Ham, as he was also the youngest son of Noah according to the well-established Shemitic peculiarity by which all the descendants are alike called sons. Beside the general designations, sons of Israel, , sons of Judah, etc., see such particular cases as Gen 29:5, where Laban is called the son of Nahor; Ezr 5:1, where the prophet Zachariah is called the son of Iddo; whereas, as appears from ZaGen Gen 1:1, he was his grandson. is rendered in our English version, his younger son, to make it applicable to Ham, on the supposition that he was the middle son, younger than Shem. But this will not do. It would be a vague way of designating him at any rate, even if the language would allow it. But the term can only denote the younger (minor) when used of one of two, and standing in contrast with . Standing alone, as it does here, or in connection with three or more, it can only be rendered minimus, the little one distinctively, the least or youngest of all. The terms are derived from the early family state with its disparity of appearance in size, though afterwards retained or transferred to express simply juniority, as the Latin major and minor in like cases. The primitive association, however, is not wholly lost, and this makes the term such a favorite to express the very youngest in the family, who is regarded as the little one long after he has grown up to maturity of age and size. So Benjamin, even when he was twenty-three years of age, was still , the little one. The term, it is true, denotes comparative juniority, yet still it derives its etymological emphasis from the fact that he was , , the late-born, the child of old age, and so still thought of as the little one of the family. To the father, especially, or to the grandfather, an epithet of this kind retains all its force. Such, most likely, was the relation between Noah and the young Canaan, until his vile abuse of it called out the greater severity of malediction. So David, too, was specially named after he had arrived at robust manhood. The other sons of Jesse are called collectively , and are named, moreover, first, second, third, etc., but of David it is said , he was the little one, minimus, youngest of all. See also Gen 29:18, where, from a similar association of ideas, Rachel is called , thy little daughter, though in that, case there were but two of them.
Everything points to Canaan as the youngest son, at that time, of all the Noachic family. He was the direct object of the curse, which, instead of ascending to the father, contrary to everything else of the kind in the Bible, was so fully accomplished in Canaans own direct descendants. So clear is this, that some of the best commentators, including most of the Jewish, although still keeping Ham as the main figure, in consequence of the old prepossession, represent Canaan as playing an active part in the business. It is the current Jewish tradition, that he first saw the exposure and told it to his father. Others ascribe to him a shameful act of mutilation, from whence it is thought came the old fable of Saturn. It was Canaan that did it, says Aben Ezra, although the Scripture does not in words reveal what it was. Rashi also gives the story of mutilation, , and he refers to the Sanhedrin of the Talmud. That most acute critic, Scaliger, not only ascribes the act to Canaan, whether it was a positive exposure or anything else, but acquits Ham of all positive blame: Quid Cham fecit patri suo? Nihil; tantum fratribus de patris probro nuncius fuit. Scalig., Elench., p. 54.
Ham might have been called the younger son in respect to Shem, as he was the elder in respect to Japheth, but this would neither answer to here, nor suit the evidently intended distinctiveness of the designation. On the other hand, he was in no sense minimus or youngest, unless there is wholly disregarded the order in which the names occur at every mention of the three: Shem, Ham, Japheth. See Gen 5:32; Gen 6:10; Gen 7:13; Gen 9:18; Gen 10:1. This would make him the middle one, at all events, whether Shem or Japheth were regarded as the eldest. The determination of the latter question would depend upon the interpretation of Gen 5:32; Gen 10:21. Noah was five hundred years old and begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is not at all credible that the births of these sons should have been so near together that they all took place at, or even about, the time when Noah was five hundred years old. It appears from Gen 11:10, that Shem was born about this time, making him about one hundred years old at the beginning of the year after the flood. Now, if we render Gen 5:32 : Noah was five hundred years old, and had begotten, or, when he had begotten, etc., making the series end at that time, which is perfectly consistent with the Hebrew idiom, then the first-named would probably have been the youngest, as last begotten, and marking the date. If they were all born afterwards, the inference would, for the same reason, have been just the other way. In favor of the first view, which would make Japheth the elder, there is the rendering which our English version gives to Gen 10:21 : Shem, the brother of Japheth the elder, instead of, the elder brother of Japheth. Some commentators have favored this on the ground that Shem must have been born after Noah was five hundred years old, because his own age is stated as being one hundred years, two years ( or the second year, or, as the dual form more strongly implies, between one and two years) after the flood. But besides the minute trifling of such an interpretation, there is a grammatical difficulty in the way which is insuperable. In the expression , the two first ords being in regimen, the epithet must belong to the whole as a compound: Japheths brother, the elder; otherwise it would be like making the adjective in English agree with the possessive case. Compare Jdg 2:7, , every great work of the Lord;1Sa 17:28, , Eliab his elder brother, where the pronoun corresponds to the noun in regimen, and, especially, such cases as Jdg 1:13; Jdg 3:9, which are precisely like this, logically and grammatically: , Calebs younger brother, not, the brother of Caleb the younger. So far the sense may be said to be fixed grammatically, but the fair inference from the context, and the fact that appears in it that there were three brothers, would seem to give it not only a comparative, but a superlative sense: the brother of Japheth, the elder one,implying that there were two brothers older than Japheth, and that Shem was the oldest of them. If we look at the whole context (Ham and his genealogy having been just disposed of), we shall see that there was more reason for the narrators saying this than for merely mentioning that Shem was older than Japheth. These considerations would seem to fix the position of Ham as the middle son; although, without them, it might have been reasonably argued that Ham himself was the oldest, from the fact that his descendants, with the exception of Canaan (unless we may reckon the Phnicians among them), so get the start, in history and civilization, of both Shem and Japheth.
A very strong argument against the hypothesis that Ham was cursed here instead of Canaan, arises from the want of allusion, in all other parts of the Scripture, to any such sweeping malediction as involving all Hams descendants. The accomplishment of the curse upon Canaan is mentioned often, and the frequent allusion to them as hewers of wood and drawers of water, is only an emphatic repetition of Noahs words, , servant of servantsnot slave of slaves, as some would take it, but an intensive Hebrew idiom to denote the most complete subjugation, such as the Canaanites were reduced to in the days of Joshua and Solomon.15 How utterly strange would such language have sounded, had it been applied, at any time during the national existence of the Jews, to the lordly descendants of Cush, Mitzraim, and Nimrod! Shall be servant to them, , a collective term for the descendants of Shem, who had just been blessed. So is it taken by all the Jewish expositors, who regard the antecedent in Gen 9:26 as being Shem alone, no other being mentioned or implied, and in Gen 9:27, as being Shem and the God of Shem who should dwell in his tents. See also Gesenius, Lehrgeb., p. 221. Instead of having ever been servant to Shem, either in the political or commercial sense, Mitzraim held the Israelites for centuries in bondage; Cush (the thiopians and the Lubims) conquered them (see 2Ch 12:3; 2Ch 16:8); the nation that Nimrod founded sacked their cities and brought their land under tribute. Instead of being servants to Japheth, the descendants of Ham were founding empires, building immense and populous cities, whilst the sons of the younger brother, with the exception of the Mediterranean or Javanic line, were roaming the dense wilds of Middle and Northern Europe, or the steppes of Central Asia, ever sinking lower and lower into barbarism, as each wave of migration was driven farther on by those that followed. The more abject race, as some would hold them, were the pioneers of the worlds civilization, advancing rapidly in agriculture and the arts, organizing governments admirable for their order though despotic in form, digging canals and lakes to fertilize the desert, everywhere turning the arid earth into a luxuriant garden, whilst the early Gomerites, and those who followed them in their wilderness march to the extreme west of Europe, were falling from iron to copper, from copper to stone, from the implements of Lamech, and of the ark and tower-builders, to the rude flint axes and bone knives that some have regarded as remains of pre-adamite men. The Hamites go down to Egypt, or ascend the Euphrates, and how soon uprise the pyramids, the immense structures of Thebes, the palaces of Babylon and Nineveh, whilst the other wretched wanderers of the wild woods and marshes were building rude huts on piles, over lakes and fens, to protect themselves from the wild beasts, or herding in caves with the animals whose bones are now found mingling with their own. Such was their progress until there met them again that primitive central light, which had been preserved, especially in the Shemitic, and had never gone wholly out in the Hamitic and Javanic lines. Even this Greek or Javanic branch of the Japhethan family, though ever preserving a position so much higher than that of their Northern consanguinii (this coming from their Mediterranean route furnishing greater facilities of intercourse, and keeping up an accessible proximity between the different pioneering waves and the source whence they came) derived, nevertheless, their earliest culture, from the Egyptians and Phnicians, as, in still later times, they received their highest cultus from a Shemitic source. The wisest among the Greeks ever traced their best thinking to the East, that is, to a Shemitic or Hamitic origin. They were ever kept in connection with the primitive light and primitive spiritual vigor, and this was the chief respect in which they differed from our Japhethan ancestors who were so early lost in the woods, and who had no fresh emanations from this central life until long after, when it had been renewed to more than its primitive power by the coming of Christ and Christianity.
The application of this curse to Ham was early made by commentators, but its enormous extension to the whole continent of Africa belongs to quite modern times. The first, though having so little support in the letter of the Scripture, had some plausible ground in the unfavorable contrast that Hams neglect, or carelessness, presents to the pious earnestness of his two brethren; and this may give the reason why he is, personally, neither cursed nor blessed. It derived countenance, also, from the subsequent wickedness of the great Hamitic nations, and that constant antagonism between them and Israel which appears throughout the Bible. The second feeling seems almost wholly due to certain historic phenomena that have presented themselves since the discovery of America. What has favored this tendency has not been alone, or mainly, the defence of slavery, as some would allege; since men have supported it, like Dr. Lange and others, who abhorred the idea of human bondage in all its forms. It has been, rather, the desire to give a worldly, political importance to the Scriptural predictions, especially the early ones, thus magnifying the Scriptures, as they suppose, and furnishing remarkable evidences of the truth of revelation. Very modern changes in the relative position of continents are seized upon for this purpose, to the ignoring or obscuring the true dignity of the Divine Word. It is safest to regard prophecy as ever being in the direct line of the church, and to judge of the relative importance of world-historical changes solely by this standard. Except as standing in visible relation to the chosen people, the chosen church, or to that extraordinary divine doing in the world which is styled revelation, the greatest earthly revolutions have no more super-earthly value than have to us the dissensions of African chiefs, or the wars of the Heptarchy. To the divine eye, or to the mind that guided the Biblical inspiration, human politics, whether of monarchies or republics, and all human political changes, in themselves considered, or out of this visible relation, must be very insignificant things. Judged by such a rule, Trojan wars, Peloponnesian wars, or the wars of Bonaparte, fall in importance below the wars of Canaan, or Hirams sending cedarrafts to Joppa to aid Solomon in the construction of the temple.
It is this feeling which has also affected the interpretation of Noahs blessing of Shem and Japheth, Gen 9:26-27, especially the words , and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. It is somewhat remarkable that the Jewish authorities should have given what seems the more spiritual, and even evangelical, interpretation here, whilst so many Christian commentators have been fond of what may be called the political or secular aspect of the prophecy, referring it, as many of them do, to the mere predominance of European power and culture among the Asiatic nations in these latter days. To support this there is carelessly assumed an ethnological view untenable in the wide extent given to it. Europe is Japheth, Shem Asia, Ham Africa. At all events, the prophecy is supposed to set forth three types, embracing all mankind. It is thought to be greatly to the honor of Scripture that it should display such a philosophy of history bearing upon the remote, latter ages, as though this were a greater thing than that fixed spirituality of view which is the same for all ages, and for less or greater territory in space. It is easy to find events which are regarded as supposed fulfilments. The English in India, the French in Tonquin, Opium wars in China, Russia forcing its way into Central Asia; it is all Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem; it is the fulfilling of the Scriptures. There is a bad moral influence in this. An interest in the prediction, or in its supposed interpretation, blinds the moral sense to the enormity of some of the acts by which it is thought to be verified. Much of it, moreover, is false ethnology. The British subjugation of the Hindoos, instead of being Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem, is nothing more than Japheth dwelling in the tents of Japheth. This political mode of interpretation has affected other prophecies of the Bible, and there is reason to believe that it has been especially blinding in the study of the Apocalypse. It proceeds, often, upon the idea that events which seem very large to us, greatly magnified as they are by nearness or other perspective influences, must have the same relative rank in the divine estimation. Now, the Scriptures teach us, that it is ofttimes directly the reverse; see Luk 16:15, what is said about things highest in the sight of men, . Great as they may seem to us, they may have comparatively little bearing upon that which is the special object of the divine care in human history; whilst their over-estimate favors the false idea, that the church is for the world, and not the world for the church. They may even have much less to do, than is generally imagined, with the highest secular progress of mankind. One political eruption may be the mere filling up of a vacuum produced by another, leaving unaffected the general historical evenness, or making even less deflection from the general course of things than other events of seemingly much less show and magnitude.
Now, in distinction from the political, there is what may be called the spiritual interpretation of this very ancient prophecy, as given by some of the best Christian commentators (see the references to them in Poles Synopsis, and the Philologica Sacra of Glassius, p. 1998), and held, with few exceptions, by the Jewish authorities. The Targum of Onkelos interprets the Hebrew by making the subject of and renders it araphrastically, , His Shekinah shall dwell in the dwelling of Shem (or of the Name). Maimonides, Rashi, and Aben Ezra, all follow this, though they also allude to a secondary sense: that Japheth should learn in the schools of Shem, which is also expressed in the Targum of Jonathan. This, however, is founded on the former idea of the divine indwelling light, in the blessing of which all nations are ultimately to share. So the Judaico-Arabic translation of Arabs Erpenianus: His Light shall dwell in the tents of Shem; the words light and Shekinah being interposed to avoid the seeming anthropomorphism. The rendering, the Shekinah, is suggested to them, moreover, by the etymological connection between (Shakan), the verb here for dwelling, and , the Shekinah: as though such language as we have Deu 12:11, , and Psa 85:10, , came directly from this passage. Some Christian commentators carry this still farther, recognizing the same etymology in the Greek (root, s k n) of Joh 1:14. Surely the fact has been so. God has specially dwelt in the tents of Shem; He hath put his glory there. The Shemite family alone preserved the pure monotheism as against the Eastern pantheism and the Western polytheism lying on each side of it. Even the Arabians and the Syrians kept the holy Name. A chosen branch had the Shekinah, the visible, divine presence, the temple, the promise, and the type of the Messiah. There is, finally, the presence and dwelling of the Messiah with the spiritual Israel down to this day. The interpretation, too, must have been very ancient, antecedent to Targums and Talmuds, as it seems to have colored everywhere the poetry and language of the Old Testament. Hence that frequent imagery of Gods dwelling with his people, or the converse in expression, though essentially the same in thought, His being his peoples dwelling-place in all generations. See 1Ki 6:13; 1Ki 8:29; Exo 25:8; Psa 90:1; Eze 43:9; ZeGen Gen 8:3. Such was Shems blessing here literally expressed, though clearly implied in the previous verse: blessed be the Lord God of Shem (the name), which was the highest mode of saying, blessed be Shem himself, the people whose God is Jehovah. Psa 33:12; Psa 144:15.
But besides its Scriptural and evangelical fitness, this interpretation has the strongest grammatical reasons. Two verbs in Hebrew, like and , joined by the conjunction, whether taken copulatively or disjunctively (that is, whether rendered and or but), must have the same grammatical subject, unless a new one clearly intervenes, or the context necessarily implies it. Neither of these exceptions exist here, and, without them, it is irregular to make the object of the first verb the subject of the second. He (God) will enlarge Japheth, but he will dwell in the tents of Shem. The contrast is between the two acts of Deity, the enlargingthe indwellingan antithesis that seems demanded by the parallelism, but is wholly lost in the other version. If it is the same subject (the blesser), then there are two objects; and two distinct blessings stand in striking contrast. It is outer growth and inner sacredness. Two states, moreover, and two dispositions are described: Japheth, the foreign rover, Shem, the home devotee, abiding mainly in the old father-land, preserving the
Sacra Dei, sanctosque patres.
Japheth is to have enlargement of territory, and, ultimately, worldly power; Shem, though small, is to have the special divine presence and indwelling. He is the divine inheritance (see Deu 32:9) among the nations.
The more secular interpretation has, indeed, some strong points of seeming fulfilment, which may affect the sense and the imagination; but for the reason, as well as for faith, how much greater is the idea of such divine indwelling than that of any outward changes, whether of power or culture, in the relations of mankind! Our estimate of causes, as great or small, even in their earthly aspect, is much affected by an after-knowledge of the effects with which they are seen to be connected. As we look back they appear greatly magnified through the medium of such sequence. It is like the mind correcting the perspective errors of the sight in respect to size and distance. What Philosophy of History, written three hundred years before Christ, even though it had been more acute than any modern production of the kind, could have given the true place of the Jewish people of that day, or would even have taken any notice of them, or regarded them as having any rank among the potent causalities of the world! How small, how secluded, how unrecognized their earthly position at that time! Nothing short of prophetic insight could discover what then lay concealed from all the learning and wisdom of the age,the divine Name and the divine presence, unfigured on Egyptian monuments, unknown in Athenian temples (see Act 17:23), but dwelling, as a reserve power, in the sequestered tents of Shem.T. L.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. See the preceding Annotations.
2. Noah the enlarger and the ennobler of human culture. The dangers of progress in civilization. Men become intoxicated with the success of their worldly effortsespecially in the beginning. After the waters of the flood the gift of wine. Under the sacrament of the rainbow, Noah as husbandman and vineyard-keeper, prepares the elements of the New Testament sacrament, bread and wine.
3. The vine is a mild reflex of the tree of knowledge; how Noahs sin becomes a mitigated figure of the sin of Adam.
4. Noah, whom all the waters of the flood did not harm, received hurt through his unguarded indulgence in a small measure of wine. The history of Adam teaches us the sacredness of limitation, the history of Noah teaches us a holy carefulness in respect to measure or degree. Moderation was a fundamental law of the ancient Chinese, as the piety that preserved Shem and Japheth.
5. The intimate connection between intoxication by wine and sexual unguardedness, or sensual indulgence in the sins of voluptuousness (see the history of Lot).
6. The three sons of Noah. The simple contrast: Cain and Abel, or godless culture and a holy cultus, develops itself in a more manifold contrast: Shem and Japheth, Shem and Ham, Japheth and Ham. For the interpretation of these contrasts, see just above. It is evident, however, that many Christians even now recognize only the contrast of Cain and Abel; that is, they do not recognize that the line of Japheth had likewise its blessing from God, although he can only reach the blessing of Shem after great wanderings. In the heart of the prophecy, Japheth has already taken up his abode in the tents of Shem, when, on the contrary, Shem himself, in the unbelieving Jews, has been given up to a long-lasting alienation.
7. Shem and Japheth are very different, but are, in their piety, the root of every ideal and humane tendency. The people and kingdom of China are a striking example of the immense power that lies in the blessing of (filial) piety; but at the same time a proof that filial piety, without being grounded in something deeper, cannot preserve even the greatest of peoples from falling into decay, like an old house, before their history ends.
8. The blessing of Shem, or the faith in salvation, shall avail for the good of Japheth, even as the blessing of Japheth, humanitarian culture, shall in the end avail for Shem. These two blessings are reciprocal, and it is one of the deepest signs of some disease in our times, that these two are in so many ways estranged from each other, even to the extent of open hostility. What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
9. It is a fearful abuse of Gods word, when men refer to the curse of Canaan in defence of American slave-traffic, and slave-holdingas is done in the southern portions of the United States. For in the first place, Canaan is not the same as Ham; in the second place, the conception of a servant in the days of Noah is not that of a slave in modern times; in the third place, Canaans servitude is the service of Shem, therefore of the Prince of Shem, that is, he becomes the servant of Christ, and in Christ is free; fourthly, as servant of Shem, and servant of Japheth, he becomes a domestic partner in the religion of Shem, as well as in the civilization of Japheth. On the other side, however, it is a misapprehension of the curse as exhibited in history, when the essential equality of all men before God is regarded as a direct abstract equality of men in their political relations. This comes from not taking rightly into account the divine judgments in history, and the gradualness of the worlds redemption (see Rom 10:12). The reader is referred to Michels History of the Cursed Races of France and Spain (Paris, 1847), as also the History of the Cursed Villages (Delessert, Paris). But such histories do not weigh merely on Canaan, or even generally on Ham. They are always economic, that is, temporary, not perpetual dooms. They are districts in which human compassion shall yet appear as a prophet announcing the turning away of the divine wrath, or as a priest interceding against it.
10. The sons of Noah do not appear to clear up the facts in respect to the race-formations. It is quite evident, however, that Ham (the hot, the dark, the southern) forms a special race, and that with the thiopian type the Malayan stands in close relation. On this side there becomes evident the whole power of the life from nature, as the spiritual life becomes subservient to it. Whilst, therefore, it is partly an imperfect distinction when we regard the Shemitic and the Japhethic race (the people of renown, as consisting in the name of God, the , and the people of the outward and bold dispersion over the earth) as having become blended in the Caucasian, it is also in part a proof of the fact that community in the higher spiritual tendency may cause very great contrasts to lose themselves in almost imperceptible distinctions. It is, however, quite consistent with the nature of the outspreading, that is, of Japheth, that whilst, on the one side, he may become one with Shem in the Caucasian, he may, on the other, represent the Mongolian, and in the American, even make a near approach to the race of Ham. On the question of races, see Langes Posit. Dogmatic, p. 324. On the theocratic significance of Shem, Ham, Japheth, compare Delitzsch, p. 282.
11. The fact that Noah lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood, is a proof that the cosmical change which was brought on by the flood is not to be regarded as sudden in all respectsnot, at least, in its relation to human life.
12. The poetical form of Noahs blessing shows that he spake in a highly rapt state of soul, in which he was as much elevated above any passionate, inhuman wrath against Canaan, as above any weak human sympathy for him. The form of curse and blessing, where both are divinely grounded, indicate a prophetic beholding of the curse and blessing, but not a creating, much less any arbitrary or magical production of the same.
13. The tenor of the Noachian blessing in its Messianic significance, cannot be mistaken. It connects itself with the name Shem. The Protevangel announced a future salvation in the seed of the woman; the language here connects the same with the name of God which was to be entrusted to Shem. Shem is to be the preserver of the name of God, of Jehovahthe preserver of his religion, of his revelation. With this office is he, as the thoughtful, the contemplative one, to dwell in tents, whilst, in some way, God is to be glorified in him, a fact which Noah can only express in the form of a doxology. In this way Shem has it as his task: 1. to rule over Canaan, and to educate him as the master the servant; 2. to receive Japheth as a paternal guest who returns after a long wandering, and to exchange with him good for goodthe goods of cultus and the goods of culture.
14. The number of Noahs sons is three, the number of the Spirit. The Spirit will get the victory in the post-diluvian humanity that has been baptized in the flood.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the Doctrinal and Ethical. The form of life in Noah: 1. Wherein similar to that of Adam? 2. wherein similar to that of Christ? 3. wherein it possesses something peculiar, that lies between them both. Noahs wine-culturethe sign of a new step in progress in the life of humanity.The vine in its significance: 1. In its perilous import; 2. in its higher significance.God hath provided not merely for our necessity, but also for our refreshment and festive exhilaration. The more refined his gifts, so much the more ought they to draw us, and make us feel the obligation of a more refined life. Noahs weakness; its connection with his freedom, his struggle and inquiry. The watchfulness and discipline of the Spirit is the only thing that can protect us against the intoxication of the sense.How one sensual excess is connected with another.How the sins of the old have for their consequence the sins of the young. Impiety (irreverence, want of a pious fear), a root of every evil, especially those of an impure tendency.Piety a root of everything noble. It has two branches: 1. devoutness; 2. moral cultivation. The harmony of Shem and Japheth. O, that it were so in our times. How they should mutually feel the obligation to cover their fathers nakedness; that is, in this case, the harm of the earlier time and tradition. What glorious effects would come from the harmony of Christendom and civilization? Shem, Ham, and Japheth: 1. All three distinct characters and types; 2. regarded as two parts, they are two sons of blessing, one child of the curse; 3. as one group. Canaan the servant of Shem and Japheth. Japheth the guest and the domestic inmate of Shem.The blessing of Noah: 1. Its most universal significance; 2. its Messianic significance.Noahs joy, sorrow, and consolation after the flood: 1. The expanding race; 2. the new development of evil; 3. the pre-signal of the patriarchal faith.
Starke: Inebriatus est, non quod vitiosus esset, sed quod inexpertus mensur assumend. Basil.Noah ad unius hor ebrietatem nudavit femoralia sua, qu per sexcentos annos contexerat. Hieron.Quem tant moles aquarum non vicerant, a modico vino victus est. Ephraem (Natalis Alexander i. p. Genesis 228: Ebrietas hc non solum innoxia sed et mystica fuit. Hieronymus interprets the planting of the vine of the planting of the Church; Noah exposed, he interprets of Christ on the cross; Ham, of the Jews, and so on. In a similar manner Augustine). (As it happens to people in sleep, when they become warm; they uncover themselves unconsciously to get air; and so it happened to Noah.) The sin of excess cannot be excused by the example of Noah. This transgression did not, however, cast him out of the grace of God; for we see that in the prophetic spirit he announces the future destiny of his sons, which certainly could never have happened if the Spirit of God had departed from him. But none the less holds true in this respect what Luther says, namely, that they who go too far in excusing the patriarch throw away the consolation which the Holy Spirit has deemed it necessary to give the Church in the fact that the greatest saints do sometimes stumble and fall (Psa 34:9).The nobler the gift, the worse the abuse (1Co 9:7; Sirach 31:35; 1Ti 5:23).Ham: Sic in sacro Dei asylo inter tam paucos diabolus unus servatus est. Calvin.Hedinger: The spreading of sin is just as much an evil as the perpetration of sin.Lange: The curse went not forth properly, against the spiritual in men, as though beforehand they had been declared to have forfeited eternal life, but properly against the corporeal only. So it was, that among the Canaanites there were some who were actually blest (there are cited as examples the cases of Melchisedek and the Gibeonites). Even at this day, it is true that Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem, since the promised land has come into the hands of the Turk instead of the Egyptian sultan. This appears also in a more spiritual manner, since in the New Testament heathen and Jews have become one in their conversion to Christ. (Noahs long life after the flood is represented as designed to instruct his posterity in the knowledge of God.)
Gerlach: It is worthy of remark, that the father of Prometheus in the Grecian fable, and who was a giant, bears the name of Japetus.Bunsen: Gen 9:18 is the introduction to an old family tradition concerning the irreverence and dissoluteness in the family of Ham, with special reference to Canaan.
Calwer Handbuch: Noahs human sin regarded as excusable, gives occasion to Hams inexcusable sin. The curse comes mainly upon Canaan, since it was just in his race that the most shameless and unnatural abominations prevailed. At the present day the last trace of this people, together with their name, has disappeared from the earth. The highest distinction is that which God hath appointed for Shem. It is the propagation of the kingdom of God by means of his descendants (Joh 10:16). Luther: And so there was a real scandal in the case, in that when Ham stumbled upon his fathers drunkenness, he judged him wrongly, and even took satisfaction in his sin.
Schrder: Valer. Herberger: Here will the reviler say, this is the text for me: Noah behaved himself in a sottish and unseemly way, and therefore may I do the same. Hold, brother. Noahs example serves not at all your turn. Only once in his life had Noah overshot the mark; but how oft hast thou already done as much? Noah did not do it purposely or wittingly. The lesson thou art to learn from Noah is not drunkenness, but to guard thyself from drunkenness, that thou mayest not, through his example, come to mischief, and cause a scandal. Wouldst thou be joyful, so let it joy remain. Pleasant drink, and wholesome food God grudges not to thee. Drink and eat, only forget not God and thine hour of death. Neither forget the death of Christ; on this account it was, that formerly the image of the cross was made in the bottom of the tankard. Let a man come to the table as to an altar, says Bernhard. In the weakness of Noah there is enkindled the wickedness of Ham. Then saw Ham. Love covers; he (Ham), instead of veiling his fathers nakedness, only the more openly exposes what he had left uncovered. As a son he transgresses against his father; so, as a brother, would he become the seducer of his brother.Calvin: His age did not excuse him. He was no merely mischievous boy, who, in his inconsiderate sport betrayed his own thoughtlessness, for he had already gone beyond his hundredth year. Luther; Whilst, in other cases, the servant has only one master, Canaan here is the servant of two lords, therefore doubly a servant. (In this way, indeed, it is, that by Shem he is drawn to piety, whilst by Japheth he is educated to a human civilization.)The sins of Ham, as the deep stain of the Hamitic race in general. Farther on the writer speaks of the corruption of Canaan, and the evil reputation of the Phnicians and Carthaginians.
Calvin: Shem holds the highest grade of honor. Therefore it is that Noah, in blessing him, expresses, himself in praise of God, and dwells not upon the person. Whenever the declaration relates to some unusual and important pre-eminency, the Hebrews thus ever ascend to the praise of God (Luk 1:68).Japheth: God gives enlargement to the enlarged.Luther: Since Abraham, in his fiftieth year, had so good and excellent a teacher in Noah, he must have had quite a growth in doctrine and religion.Herberger: Fear not the cross, since here thou hast before thee one who bore it for nine hundred and fifty years.
Footnotes:
[10][Gen 9:20. , rendered and Noah began to be a husbandman,man of the adamah, or man of the soilagricola. It cannot mean that this was the first time he had practised husbandry, but the beginning of it after the flood, when he and his sons had descended into the low country.T. L.]
[11][Gen 9:25. , a servant of servants,a Hebraism to denote the intensity or degradation of Canaans servitudethe lowest and vilest of servants, or, as they are afterwards characterized, hewers of wood and drawers of water, in distinction from the ordinary subjugation of a conquered people. For remarks on , his younger son, or little son, and its reference to Canaan alone, see appended Note, p. 337, on Noahs curse and blessings.T. L.]
[12][Gen 9:27., shall enlarge Japheth. Europe (), wide-faced, extensive, spacious. This supposed residence, as it mainly was, of the sons of Japheth, had this name very early. From its unknown extent it was probably so called in comparison with the better known parts of contiguous Asia. The Greeks may have simply translated the early tradition of the prophecy into the name , and afterward perverted it, according to their usual course by one of their absurd fables.T. L.]
[13][Gen 9:27., and he shall dwell, etc. Who shall dwell? The Jewish authorities, with few exceptions, say it is God, the subject of the verb just preceding, and this is, doubtless, according to grammatical regularity. See Aben Ezra, Rashi, and others. Sometimes, to avoid the seeming anthropopathism, they substitute for God the word , his light, or (Shekinah), deriving it from this very verb . Thus, the Targum of Onkelos, , His Shekinah [or indwelling) shall abide in the dwelling (mashkeneh) of Shem. So the Arabic, both of the Polyglott and of Arabs Erpenianus, , His Light shall dwell in the tents of Shem. See further, appended note, p. 337. on the blessing of Noah.T. L.]
[14][The Phnicians, as distinguished from the Canaanites and Sidonians, were probably Shemites, as they spake the Shemitic language, and thus made it the language of the whole district. This corresponds to what is said by Herodotus and Strabo, that they came from the Persian Gulfthe land of Shinar, the old home-land.T. L.
[15][The fact that, of all the descendants of Ham, Canaan was the nearest object of interest to the Jews, and so historically of most importance to them, gives the reason of the somewhat peculiar designation, Gen 9:18, where a kind of note is affixed to Hams name, stating that he was the father of Canaan, or rather that this was another name specially given to him by the Israelites, as being beet known to them, or called to mind to them, through his son; , Ham, that is, the father of Canaan, or Ham, that is, Abi-Canaan,according to a method of naming that has ever prevailed among the Arabians, down to this day, as Abu-Beker, Abulwalid, or, as in this case, Abu-Canaan, where the son is better known, or an object of nearer interest than the father who is thus named after him.T. L.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.
Ver. 18. Ham is the father of Canaan. ] Who was cursed together with his father (and why, see Gen 9:25 ), and became the progenitor of those cursed Canaanites, cast out by the Israelites.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 9:18-19
18Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. 19These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.
Gen 9:18 Shem The etymology of this name can be renown or name (BDB 1028 II).
Ham This name can mean hot (KB 325II). It may have reflected an ancient name for Egypt (i.e. hot lands).
Japheth The etymology of this name can be extender or enlarged (BDB 834, see Hebrew word play in Gen 9:22).
Canaan He (BDB 488) is mentioned for possibly two reasons: (1) Noah’s drunkenness and resulting curse will affect Canaan or (2) the Canaanites became Israel’s major theological problem in later years (i.e. Moses’ lifetime).
Gen 9:19 This was the repeatedly stated purpose of God (i.e. fill the earth). The tower of Babel was in direct deviance to this.
It is interesting that modern mitochondrial DNA studies have concluded that the original humans came from north Africa while modern philology has determined that all human languages started in northern India. Notice how geographically near this is to the biblical account.
Apparently all the different races of humans are direct descendants of these three brothers. Modern DNA research has shown that humans of all races are genetically the same!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Noahs Three Sons
Gen 9:18-29
Noahs sin reminds us how weak are the best of men; liable to fall, even after the most marvelous deliverances. The love of strong drink will drag a preacher of righteousness into the dust. But if our brethren sin, let us not parade or tell their faults, but cover them with the mantle of divine love. We may abhor the sin, but let us restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, remembering that we also may be tempted. See Gal 6:1-18 :l-4. The Semitic races have been the source of religious light and teaching to the world. God has been known in their tents. The Japhetic races are the great colonizers and populators of the world, overflowing their own boundaries, and participating in the religious privileges of the Shemites. The progressive ideas of the race of Japheth, which, of course, includes the Indo-European race, have also pervaded the world. The Hamitic races, of which Canaan was one, have always gravitated downward.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter 14
Noah and His Sons
“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan
Gen 9:18-29
The entire inspired account of Noahs life after the flood, a period of 350 years, is given to us by Moses in just twenty-nine verses (Gen 9:1-29). That fact, in itself, is remarkable, when we consider what tremendous responsibilities fell upon his shoulders. Noah led the world in the worship of God. He was the man responsible for the government of the nations which issued from his loins. In addition to his tasks as both the prophet of God and the civil magistracy of the world, Noah still had the care of his family.
Yet, the Holy Spirit passes by all the frustrations of earth he endured and feats of faith he accomplished, and focuses our attention upon the only blemish recorded concerning his life of 950 years! There must be some special reason for this. Dont you think?
The Scriptures declare that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:8). The Lord God reduced the world to one family. In the flood, the Lord God destroyed the whole human race, except for Noah, his sons, and their wives. Why? Because Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. God chose Noah, provided an ark of salvation for Noah and his family, put them in the ark and graciously brought Noah and all who were with him in the ark through the judgment.
In Gen 10:1-11 Moses describes Gods covenant with Noah and his sons after the flood. In these verses God promised his providential care to Noah and his family, as they went about replenishing the earth (Gen 9:1). He put the fear of man in the beasts of the earth (Gen 9:2). The Lord gave man all the vegetation of the earth, beasts of the land, fowls of the air, and fish of the sea for his food and pleasure (Gen 9:3-4). God required all men, under penalty of death, to take care of one another (Gen 9:5-6)[7]. Then, in Gen 9:8-17, we read of Gods covenant, in which he promised never to destroy the world by water again and the rainbow, the token of his covenant[8].
[7] As it is expanded in the giving of the law and by our Lord Jesus in his sermon on the Mount, this prohibition of murder is much more than just a prohibition of murder. It requires that we love and care for one another, that we protect both the lives of others and the name and well-being of others. As we shall see, it is precisely at this point that Hams rebellion and sin were manifest. He hated his father and sought to destroy his character.
[8] This covenant and its token (the rainbow) are used by the Spirit of God as a type and picture of the covenant of grace, according to which our heavenly Father rules the universe for the salvation of his elect (Rev 4:1-3; Rom 8:28-30).
In Gen 9:18-19, we are told that “The sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. We have two choices. We can either accept the ever changing, wild guesses of evolutionary fools regarding the origins of man and the nations of the world; or we can believe the revelation of God. I believe God.
According to the Book of God, all mankind descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve. It is obvious that we have many different groups or races with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible’s record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years.
That is sheer nonsense. Skin pigmentation, eye and hair colors, and the shapes of mens physical features change within immediate families in one generation. It requires nothing more than looking at any man and his children to see that fact clearly demonstrated. The races of humanity did not evolve from some cosmic ooze, or from the fish of the sea, or from some very crude early species of monkey. We may have different skin color and may be shaped differently, but the entire human race is one race. We are all the sons and daughters of Adam, descended through Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The dispersing of the nations, under the judgment of God, was the work of Gods wise and adorable providence, not the luck of evolutionary accidents (Act 17:26).
In Gen 9:20-29, the Holy Spirit records the sad events of Noahs drunkenness and Hams sin against his father, the curse of Canaan, his prophecy regarding his sons, and Noahs death.
Noahs Fall
In Gen 9:20-21, Moses describes and records for all to read Noahs fall. A sad, sad record this is, but it is written for our learning and admonition. So let us learn its lessons well. May God the Holy Spirit inscribe them upon our hearts. We must make neither more nor less of this than the Spirit of God does. We are told by God what kind of man Noah was. Like Job, grace had made Noah a just and upright man (Gen 6:9). He was just, Both justified by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ and just in his dealings with God and men. He was sincere, upright, and honest. The grace of God which distinguished him from the world had saved him corruption of his own heart and the corruptions of the world in which he lived. Noah was a child of God, a man of faith (Heb 11:7).
Yet, when Moses was inspired of God to write the history of this remarkable man after the flood, he mentions nothing about those 350 years in which he walked with God by faith in Christ, just as his great grandfather, Enoch, had done. Nothing else is mentioned about all those years except this drunken stupor and the events surrounding it.
The intention of our Heavenly Father in permitting these things and the intention of the Holy Spirit in inspiring Moses to record them here is that we might learn from them and profit by them (Rom 15:4; 1Co 10:11-13). Without question, there are many other lessons which could and should be drawn from this sad event in Noahs life than I shall mention; but it appears to me that there are five very obvious lessons for us to learn from this,
First, learn this: The Bible is, indeed, the inspired Word of God himself. One glaring evidence of Divine Inspiration is the fact that those men who wrote the Scriptures recorded, without excuse or extenuation, the most horrible failures of the greatest examples of faith and godliness. Unlike the writings of men, the Word of God deals with things honestly, even those things which are most likely to give men occasion to blaspheme and ridicule it. There is no attempt made in the Book of God to hide or excuse Noahs drunkenness, Abrahams actions before Pharaoh, Davids crime, Peters fall, or even the strife between Paul and Barnabas.
Second, these things are written in the Book of God to teach us, by example, that Salvation is of the Lord! Grace precedes the need for grace. God chose Noah and made a covenant with him, assuring him of Gods goodness before he needed the assurance, in anticipation of the need. Grace saved Noah and preserved him; and when he fell, grace restored the fallen saint, and preserved him still.
Third, the Holy Spirit here shows us that the very best of men are only men at best. Man at his best estate is altogether vanity. The fact is, though he was saved by the grace of God, Noah was still, just like you and me, a sinner. The human heart is essentially evil (Jer 17:9).
Fourth, the only righteousness any sinner has or can have before the holy, Lord God, is the righteousness of Christ. It is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us by grace that justifies us, and the righteousness of Christ imparted to us in the new birth that sanctifies us.
Fifth, learn this: No believer in this world is immune from temptation or sin. God graciously keeps his own elect from Satan, but not from sin, — from death, but not from decline, — from condemnation, but not from corruption, — from falling away, but not from falling. Sometimes God lets one of his saints fall for the comfort of others, lest we be overwhelmed with despair when we experience the same thing.
Martin Luther wrote, The Holy Spirit wanted the godly, who know their weakness and for this reason are disheartened, to take comfort from the offense that comes from the account of the lapses among the most perfect patriarchs. In such instances we should find proof of our own weakness and therefore bow down in humble confession, not only to ask for forgiveness, but also to hope for it.
Hams Sin
Next, in Gen 9:22-23, the Spirit of God shows us Hams sin, the terrible sin of a malicious, God hating rebel against his father, and, more importantly, against the God of heaven, whose authority was represented in his father.
When Noah lay naked in his tent, in his drunkenness, Ham walked in on him. When he saw his father in such a condition, rather than trying to help the old man recover, rather than protecting his fathers honor, he went outside and called his brothers, seizing the opportunity to defame his father, his fathers God, and the worship of God his father had taught him.
Remember, Ham was not a boy. This was not a childish taunt. Ham was a grown man. He was at least 100 years old. No doubt, Noah had often upbraided and reproved him. Perhaps he had often reproved Ham for drunkenness. Hams sin revealed his heart. The son would not have treated his father with such contempt, if he had not already murdered him in his heart.
God commands children to reverence their parents, giving them the honor due to their position as our parents, because it is right. Ham despised his father. Before the flood, the whole world thought Noah was a fool, condemned him as a heretic, and looked down upon him as a mad, divisive, mean-spirited bigot, because the gospel he preached condemned them. Though he hid it, Ham was, all the while, in complete agreement with them; and now his true heart was manifest. Like Absolam after him, Ham walked in the way of Cain, ran after the error of Balaam, and perished under the gainsaying of Korah (Jud 1:8; Jud 1:10-11). Ham thought himself holy and Noah evil. Therefore, he jumped at the chance to expose Noah as a sinful wretch, despised and judged of God. He gleefully aired his fathers nakedness.
This is the conflict which has been going on in this world since the beginning of time and continues today. The seed of the serpent is at enmity with the seed of the woman. As Cains murder of Abel must be traced to the enmity Satan has for Christ, so Hams uncovering of his fathers nakedness reveals the same enmity. It is this enmity of hell which inflames the rage of the entire world against Christ, his church, and the gospel of the grace of God. It is this enmity which unites the whole religious world of Babylon (intoxicated with the wine of free will, works religion) against Christ and his kingdom.
Ham was an apostate. He professed to be one with Noah. He professed to believe the gospel Noah preached. But it was all a show of hypocrisy. In time, he turned from the way of Noah to the way of Cain. Ham behaved as a reprobate man. He rejoiced in the iniquity of his father and published it (1Co 13:4-6; Gal 6:1; Pro 10:12; Pro 12:6; Pro 17:9). Like his father, the devil, he was a liar and a murderer.
As Shem and Japheth refused to look upon and covered their fathers nakedness, believers protect the names, reputations, and honor of others (Gen 9:23). They took a blanket and went into the tent backwards, refusing to look upon Noahs nakedness and folly. By their actions, they said to one another, This is not our father. We will not look upon his folly, ourselves or expose it to anyone else. That is what love does when object loved falls (Pro 10:12). Believers are kind, forbearing, and gracious, bearing with one anothers infirmities, covering one anothers faults, extenuating, excusing, and making as little as possible of one anothers failures. As this is true regarding all men, it is particularly true with regard to our brethren, and most particularly with regard to Gods servants. Against an elder receive not an accusation, except it be by the mouth of two or three witnesses. Gossiping, slandering men and women, people who rejoice in spreading the faults of others (though they always preface it by saying, I hate to say it, but), simply do not know God.
Canaans Curse
In Gen 9:24-25, we read about the dreadful curse that fell upon Canaan and all the descendants of Ham because of their fathers sin. These words do not represent the wrath and vengeance of Noah, but the terrible wrath of God. The Lord God was so moved in wrath against this despicable, insolent, contemptuous rebel, that he does not even call him by name, but calls him Canaan, after his son and the multitude of rebels which would spring from his loins.
What was this curse? What did it involve? There is no question that Ham was the father of those people known as Negroid; but it is the height of racial arrogance and displays a terrible ignorance of Scripture to suggest that the color of a mans skin represents the curse of God (Col 3:10-11). Ham and his sons were cursed to servitude, bondage, and slavery; and it is true that in modern times the sons of Ham were enslaved by other people. Some have even pointed to this text as a biblical justification for the barbaric practice of slavery. However, if we read the Bible and/or history books, we see that cursed Ham took possession of the largest part of the earth and established the most extensive and powerful kingdoms in the world. Compare this with the history of blessed Shem and Japheth, it appears to the eye of carnal reason that they were cursed and Ham was blessed.
The curse of God upon Canaan (Ham and his descendants) must have been something other than what men look upon and consider a curse. The fact is, this prophecy, like all others, is beyond the mere scope of reason. It can be understood only by the revelation of God given in Holy Scripture and embraced by faith.
The life of the believer is a life of faith and hope. Physical health, material prosperity, and domestic tranquillity is no more an indication of blessedness, than adversity is an indication of wretchedness. In fact, just the opposite is true, as the book of Job demonstrates. Ham was cursed. Yet, he alone became a master. Nimrod, who was his grandson by Cush, became the father of Babylon. Mizraim, another of Hams children, became the father of Egypt (Gen 10:6; Psa 78:51). Shem and Japheth were blessed. Yet, they appear to have been cursed. The specific curse of God upon Ham and his sons was slavery. Yet, it was Ham and his descendants who held Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in slavery in Canaan and in Egypt. What, then, was Gods curse upon Ham? Do we have any indication in Holy Scripture what it was? We do indeed.
You will recall that when the Lord God cursed Cain, he put a mark upon him. Cain complained that his punishment was greater than he could bear and wanted to die; but God made him a permanent fugitive and vagabond in the earth. Yet, again, we see Cains sons possessing great wealth and power (Gen 4:10-18). The mark God put on Cain, like the curse placed upon Ham, was a spiritual mark and a spiritual curse. I do not know whether Cain was marked by some terrible, grotesque disease or deformity; but I really doubt it. The mark of Cain and the curse of Canaan were the same. Gods mark upon Cain was the mark of the beast, the mark of the world, the mark of doomed, damned men, clinging to the religion of the world, despising God, his Son, and the gospel of his grace. The same is the curse God put upon Ham and his spiritual sons.
The only people in this world who are not engulfed in the religion of this world, the only ones who do not wear the mark of the beast are Gods elect, whose names are in the book of life and who have been sealed by the Spirit of God[9] (2Th 2:11-12; Rev 13:8; Rev 13:17-18; Rev 14:11; Rev 16:2; Rev 17:8; Rev 19:20).
[9] The curse, in so far as it relates to spiritual things, is not upon the physical descendants of Cain and Ham, but upon those who walk in the way of Cain and Ham, in the way of self-righteous, free will, works religion. In other words, all idolaters are the descendants of Cain and Ham.
Learn this, and learn it well. — Gods thoughts are higher than our thoughts. His ways are higher than our ways. Gods elect are blessed with a kingdom, but it is a kingdom of grace, not of the world. We possess great blessedness, but it is the blessedness of forgiven sin, a reconciled God, and everlasting glory. Upon these things we must set our hearts, leaving the cursed followers of Cain and Ham to possess and perish with the world (Col 3:1-3; Mat 6:19-21; Mat 6:33)..
Learn this, too. The Lord God does visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children, generation after generation. God considers it no more a dishonor to his character to declare this than he did to declare that he has mercy on whom he will have mercy (Exo 33:19; Exo 34:6-7). It should, however, be understood that while the sin of a father makes him responsible for the ruin of his family, a mans own sin alone is the cause of his punishment (Eze 18:20; Deu 24:16). In the day of judgment we will, each one, give account of himself to God.
Noahs Prophecy
In Gen 9:25-27 we read concerning his other two sons as well, Shem and Japheth. What a remarkable prophecy this is. It is a prophecy which was never fully understood or explained by any other man, until the apostle Paul, writing by the same Spirit of inspiration, explained its meaning in Romans 9-11. Noah understood that his sons would inhabit the earth until the end of time. He prophesied that Christ (the God of Shem the Seed of woman) would come into the earth through Shems seed. He also prophesied that God would bring about the fulness of Israel by gathering his elect from the Gentile world (Japheth) into the tents of Shem (the Jews). Noah also prophesied that Ham, that dominant but reprobate son, would ultimately become the servant of both Shem and Japheth.
Noah praised the God of Shem for his electing love. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. The blessings Shem enjoys are not the result of his goodness, but of Gods. Therefore it is the God of Shem who is blessed. Then the old patriarch spoke of the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. This dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem is not the result of war, but the blessed unity and union of believing hearts in Christ (Eph 2:13-22).
Noah also assured his favored sons that their oppressing, persecuting, slandering brother, with all his apparent power, would only and always be their servant, performing only that which will ultimately benefit them. What a promise this is! Ham built Egypt, and Egypt possessed Israel; but there redemption was portrayed in the overthrow of Pharaoh. Ham built Canaan, and Canaan became the land of Israels inheritance by the blessing of God. Ham built Babylon, and Babylon possessed Israel. Yet, there redemption was portrayed in Cyrus. It was the sons of Ham (the Pharisees and the Romans) who crucified the Lord of glory; but thereby the Son of God redeemed his people (Act 2:23). To this day, the sons of Ham despise, persecute, and slander Shem and Japheth (Gods elect); but they only serve the interests of our souls (Rom 11:33-36).
Noahs End
In Gen 9:28-29, the Holy Spirit records Noahs end, that we might also learn from that as well. Noah lived 950 years, 20 years longer than Adam and only 19 years less than Methuselah. He lived, for at least 370 of those years, as a preacher of righteousness. Yet, he died at last. Here is a man who saw great things. Happy are those who are blessed of God to see the same. Noah saw the world before the flood, deserving the wrath and judgment of God. He saw the justice and mercy of God in bringing him through the flood. This man saw the world after the flood and the splendor of Gods good providence in all things. This same man, Noah, now lives in the world above and sees all things clearly, in the light of the glory of God our Savior.
Do you see him, seated yonder, with the blood washed band around the throne of God and of the Lamb? I think I can hear the old patriarch singing, as he cast his crown at the Saviors feet and worships him that liveth for ever and ever. — “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were createdThou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earthWorthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Shem: Gen 9:23, Gen 10:1, 1Ch 1:4
Ham: Gen 10:1, Gen 10:6
Canaan: Heb. Chenaan
Reciprocal: Gen 5:32 – Shem Gen 7:13 – and Shem Luk 3:36 – Sem
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE ORIGIN OF THE NATIONS
NOAHS PROPHECY (Gen 9:18-29)
To which of the sons of Noah is attention called at the beginning of this section, and why (Gen 9:18)? To what occupation did Noah apply himself after the flood (Gen 9:18)? Of what sin was he guilty (Gen 9:21)? Of what grosser sin was his son guilty (Gen 9:22)? What curse did Noah pronounce on the line of Ham (Gen 9:25)? Which particular line? Just why Canaan is selected one cannot say. We only know that his father is not once mentioned in this chapter without him, for which God must have had a reason even if it is not revealed. One reason may be to emphasize that the curse rested upon Asiatics rather than Africans. Because certain of these latter are descendants of Ham, and are black, and have served as slaves, men have associated the curse with them, but the facts of the next chapter (Gen 10:15-19) are against that idea. The Hebrews or Israelites, the descendants of Shem, who were themselves slaves in Egypt for a while, afterwards enslaved the Canaanites (Jos 9:23-27; 1Ki 9:20-21), and this in part is a fulfillment of this prophecy. It is pertinent that the Canaanites, like others in the line of Ham, the Babylonians, Egyptians and Africans, inherited the sensuous characteristics of their progenitor for which the judgments of God fell upon them later.
Passing over the blessing upon Shem, or rather the God of Shem, mention the three things prophesied of Japheth (Gen 9:27). He is enlarged in the sense that the peoples of Europe sprung out of his loins, to say nothing of the Hindus and doubtless the Mongolians. He dwells in the tents of Shem in the sense at least that he partakes of the blessing of their religion, that of the Bible. Canaan is his servant in the sense doubtless in which the nations and tribes descendant from him are subject to the control of Europe.
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Gen 9:18-29. The Drunkenness of Noah; his Curse and his Blessings.In this section Gen 9:28 f. belongs to P. If Gen 5:32, Gen 7:6, Gen 9:28 f. are read together, we have an account of Noah similar to the rest of the genealogy in Genesis 5. Gen 9:18-27 is from J, but not entirely from the same stratum. Gen 9:18 f. belongs to Js genealogical table in Genesis 10. Gen 9:20-27 has close points of contact with Gen 4:17-24; Noah, like Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, is represented as a culture-hero, the first to cultivate the vine and make wine, thus vindicating Lamechs prophecy and the name he gave his son. And it similarly regards the history of the race as unbroken by the Flood. The representations of Noah as in the one case a husbandman, the discoverer of the vine, and in the other as the one man worthy for his piety to be saved from the destruction of the sinful race, do not necessarily conflict. But here he is represented as the ancestor of three distinct peoples, in the Flood story he is the ancestor of all nations. It is not easy to fit this narrative either into the period before or that after the Flood. If before the Flood, why should any accursed have been spared? When the Flood took place, Noahs sons were grown up and married; here they live with their father, and the offence is that of a boy rather than a man. Further, Noahs sons were originally Shem, Japheth, and Canaan, the last being guilty of the offence. Otherwise it is inexplicable that Canaan and not Ham was cursed. Gen 9:24 describes the offender as the youngest son, and Japheth as the second son, whereas in the Flood story, Ham is the second son and Japheth the youngest. A comparison of Gen 9:25 with Gen 9:26 f. shows that Canaans brethren were Shem and Japheth. Ham the father of in Gen 9:22 is, accordingly, a gloss, and similarly and Ham is the father of Canaan in Gen 9:18. As to the identity of the peoples there is some dispute. Canaan probably represents the Canaanites, Shem the Hebrews, with kindred peoples, and Japheth the Hittites, rather than the Phnicians or Philistines; though possibly the reference is to prehistoric peoples. Ham is a larger unity of which Canaan forms a part.
Gen 9:18 f. Here the population of the whole world is derived from Noah through three sons whose names are given as Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the order being that of age.
Gen 9:20-27. While the discovery of wine is regarded as a blessing, since it refreshes and comforts man after his toil (Gen 5:29*), the narrator also saw its moral dangers. The description of Noahs posture and Canaans shameless and unfilial act expresses the recoil of the hardy Hebrews from the filthy indecencies of the enervated Canaanites, to which the conduct of the two elder brothers is an emphatic rebuke. On learning of his sons deed, the father utters a curse upon him, followed by blessings on the culprits brothers. In antiquity a curse was much more solemn than it is to-day. When the modern man curses, it is to give vent to his feelings, the only effect is the reflex one on himself. For the ancients (and among peoples of lower culture to-day) a curse was potent to achieve its own fulfilment. Once uttered, it could not be withdrawn. Aylwin supplies an excellent example in modern literature. So, too, with a blessing; it also had an inherent power of self-fulfilment, and could not be taken back (cf. Gen 27:33). The curse dooms Canaan to be the slave of his brothers, i.e. the Canaanites are put in subjection to Shem and Japheth. It was infamous exegesis to find in this passage a justification for the enslavement of negroes. In MT of Gen 9:26 not Shem, but Yahweh his God, is blessed. Probably we should read Bless, Yahweh, the tents of Shem (brk for brk and ohle for lh). This is confirmed by the reference to the tents of Shem in Gen 9:27. God (not Yahweh here) is entreated to expand (Yaphtnotice the play on the name) Japheth, and grant him to dwell in the tents of Shem, i.e. in friendly intercourse (not conquest).
Gen 9:20. Translate: And Noah the husbandman began and planted.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
3. The curse on Canaan 9:18-29
This pericope presents the characteristics of the three branches of the human family that grew out of Noah. Moses stressed the themes of blessing and cursing. God cursed Canaan with slavery because Ham showed disrespect toward Noah whereas He blessed Shem and Japheth for their regard for their father’s vulnerable condition.
"The world seems all set for a new start. The slate has been wiped clean, and we hope that the mistakes of the antediluvians will not be repeated. But no sooner is the blessing pronounced and the eternal covenant confirmed than man lapses again." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p. 206.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Evidently Noah became so drunk that he took off all his clothes and then passed out naked in his tent. There is no explicit indication that Ham disrobed his father or committed some homosexual act. [Note: See Mathews, pp. 417, 419.] However, because the expression "to see one’s nakedness" is sometimes used of sexual intercourse, it is possible that sexual immorality was involved. [Note: Wolf, pp. 106-7.] Noah’s shame was not that he drank wine but that he drank to excess and thereby lost self-control that resulted in immodesty (cf. Eph 5:18). Certainly this incident should warn the reader of the potential harm of drunkenness both for the drinker and for his or her family. The stumbling block for Adam and Eve had also been food.
"Whatever the actual nature of his [Noah’s] conduct might have been [in becoming drunk and uncovering himself in his tent] . . . , the author presents his deed as one of disgrace and shame (’nakedness,’ as in Genesis 3), and he seems intent on depicting the scene in such a way as to establish parallels between Noah’s disgrace (he took of the fruit of his orchard and became naked) and that of Adam and Eve (who took of the fruit of the Garden and saw that they were naked)." [Note: Sailhaver, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 120. See also Mathews, p. 418.]
Ham’s gazing on Noah’s nakedness represents an early step in the abandonment of the moral code after the Flood. Ham dishonored Noah not by seeing him naked but by his outspoken delight in his father’s condition (cf. Gen 19:26; Exo 33:20; Jdg 13:22; 1Sa 6:19).
"It is difficult for someone living in the modern world to understand the modesty and discretion of privacy called for in ancient morality. Nakedness in the OT was from the beginning a thing of shame for fallen man [Gen 3:7] . . . the state of nakedness was both undignified and vulnerable. . . . To see someone uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage for potential exploitation." [Note: Allen P. Ross, "The Curse of Canaan," Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):230.]
"The sons of Noah are here shown to belong to two groups of humankind, those who like Adam and Eve hide the shame of their nakedness and those who like Ham, or rather the Canaanites, have no sense of their shame before God. The one group, the line of Shem, will be blessed (Gen 9:26); but the other, the Canaanites (not the Hamites), can only be cursed (Gen 9:25)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 130.]
"Shem, the father of Abraham, is the paradigm of later Israel; and Ham of their archenemies, Egypt and Canaan (Gen 10:6). Lying behind this is the ancient concept of corporate personality. Because of this unity of father-son, the character of the father is anticipated in the deeds of the sons. Hebrew theology recognized that due to parental influence future generations usually committed the same acts as their fathers whether for ill or good. In this case the curse is directed at Ham’s son as Ham’s just deserts for the disrespect he had toward his own father, Noah." [Note: Mathews, p. 421.]
Ham’s action also may have involved an attempt to take leadership of the family from Noah. [Note: See Jordan, pp. 47-52.] Shem and Japheth’s act of covering their father’s nakedness, however, imitated God who covered Adam and Eve’s nakedness in the garden (Gen 3:21).