Genesis 9

¹⁸ The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) ¹⁹ These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed. ²⁰ Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. ²¹ He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. ²² And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. ²³ Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. ²⁴ When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, ²⁵ he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” ²⁶ He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. ²⁷ May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” ²⁸ After the flood Noah lived 350 years. ²⁹ All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died.

A couple years ago I listened to an audio book called So You’ve Been Publicly Shamedby British journalist Jon Ronson. It was, hands down, one of the most interesting things I have ever heard. In it, Ronson explores the phenomenon of public shaming, especially as it relates to the internet and social media. His basic thesis is that the internet has become what the old town square and stocks used to be in early America: the place where people who have messed up are publicly shamed. For instance, he considers the case of Jonah Lehrer, a very successful popular science writer and thinker. Lehrer wrote a best-selling book in which he fabricated some quotes by Bob Dylan. Another journalist figured out that the quotes were fabricated and exposed Lehrer, leading to his spectacular fall. Eventually, Lehrer offered a public and very muddled apology in a live-streamed forum in which, behind him, and with his knowledge and agreement, real-time comments and reactions from listeners were projected on a screen on the platform as he talked. You can imagine how that played out! Lehrer’s public shaming lead to a botched apology that was itself undercut by more public shaming. Ronson’s book goes on to demonstrate case after case of (a) somebody messing up and (b) online community’s unleashing oceans of public shame on the person, oftentimes (but not always) grossly disproportionate to the offense itself.

I thought of Ronson’s book while working on our text. I believe that Genesis 9 recounts one of the first recorded instances of public shaming: Ham’s shaming of his father, Noah. And that shaming offers a strange and fascinating context to a later attemptedpublic shaming­—the crucifixion of Jesus—that was, in fact, very different from Noah’s in very important ways. But first, let us consider Noah’s shaming.

Noah was enraged by his son shaming him in his weakness and pronounced a curse.

Noah has thus far been presented in a very positive light indeed! He was obedient to God in building the ark and, immediately after the flood, Noah led his family in worship! Genesis 9 concludes, however, with a less than noble depiction of Noah.

¹⁸ The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) ¹⁹ These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed. ²⁰ Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. ²¹ He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. ²² And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. ²³ Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. ²⁴ When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, ²⁵ he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” ²⁶ He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. ²⁷ May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” ²⁸ After the flood Noah lived 350 years. ²⁹ All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died.

In short, what we have here are (a) Noah’s sin (drunkenness), (b) Ham’s sin (shaming), and (c) Noah’s reaction (cursings). Noah’s sin is fairly straightforward. Noah was a farmer. He drank too much and became drunk. Then he lay naked in his tent. Are there further insinuations that come with Noah’s disrobement? Possibly so. Regardless, Noah’s behavior was not becoming of a man of God.

Ham’s sin against Noah, however, is much more difficult to understand. On the face of it, his sin was laughing at Noah’s inebriated, naked state of indignity. His sin was shaming his father. But is there more to what really happened here? Old Testament scholar Victor Hamilton observes that many interpretations have been offered to explain Ham’s sin against Noah, from Ham looking at Noah’s nakedness, to Ham talking about Noah’s nakedness, to Ham castrating Noah, to Ham committing incest with Noah, to Ham committing incest with his mother (i.e., In Leviticus 18:6-19 the phrase “to uncover the nakedness of X” “means to commit fornication, to engage in heterosexual ((never homosexual)) intercourse with a relative.” “Thus, Lev. 18:7, ‘you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father,’ prohibits cohabitation with one’s mother.”). We must be careful here. As interesting as these theories are, they remain just that: theories. Dogmatizing one’s opinion on such a matter is most unwise. After surveying these theories, Hamilton concludes that “[w]e are on much safer ground in limiting Ham’s transgression simply to observing the exposure of the genitalia and failing to cover his naked father.”[1]E.A. Speiser likewise observes that “saw his father’s nakedness” “relates to exposure…and does not necessarily imply sexual offenses.”[2]

Regardless of the extent of the physical dimension of Ham’s sin, there was certainly a deep current of dishonoring in Ham’s actions. Robert Candlish wisely notes:

[Ham] not merely dishonored [Noah] as a parent—he disliked him as a preacher of righteousness. Hence his satisfaction, his irrepressible joy, when he caught the patriarch in such a state of degradation. Ah! he has found that the godly man is no better than his neighbors; he has got behind the scenes; he has made a notable discovery; and now he cannot contain himself. Forth he rushes, all hot and impatient, to publish the news, so welcome to himself! And if he can meet with any of his brethren who have more sympathy with this excessive sanctity than he has, what a relief—what a satisfaction—to cast this choice specimen in their teeth; and so make good his right to triumph over them and their faith ever after.

To which James Montgomery Boice adds, “The only think that is worse than committing a specific sin is the devilish delight of finding out and reveling in that sin in others. This Ham did!”[3]This is true.

It also needs to be observed that this whole drama had wider political/cultural ramifications, for from each of the sons different people groups would come. Walter Brueggemann delineates these lines like this:

• Shem – Israel (“undoubtedly”)
• Japheth – possible the Philistines (“impossible to identify, though as an ally of Israel against Canaan, he is often thought to be Philistine”)
• Ham – Canaan[4]

So the blessings and cursings that Noah hands out are not limited to his sons but to their respective lines. As such, this episode has ongoing political/cultural ramifications.

But there is even more! This episode not only has ongoing political/cultural ramifications, it is also evidence of a great theological truth, and that is this: fallen man is caught in a cycle of repeating the sins of Adam, Eve, and Cain. This episode is the story of humanity written small. This is the story of the whole of human history! Ken Mathews has argued that there are a number of clues in Genesis 9:18-19 that recall “the language of the world before the flood, especially Adam’s story, but also Cain’s rivalry with brother Abel.” These include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• “Noah and Adam share in the same profession” (2:15; 9:20).
• “the language of ‘curse’ (3:14, 17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25) and ‘blessing’ (1:28; 5:2; 9:26)”
• “like Adam, Noah’s transgression results in familial strife among his descendants”
• “resulting in fratricide for Adam’s sons (4:8) and slavery for Noah’s youngest (9:25-26)”
• “the tree of knowledge ‘in the middle of [betok]the garden’ (2:9; 3:3, 8) and Noah ‘inside [betok]the tent (9:21)”
• “The woman ‘saw’ (ra’a, 3:6), and Ham ‘saw’ (ra’a, 9:22)
• “Adam and Eve ‘knew [yada]they were naked’ (3:7), and Noah ‘knew [yada]what his youngest son had done to’ him (9:24)”
• “and God asked, ‘Who told [nagad]you that you were naked?” (3:11), and Ham ‘told’ (nagad) his brothers.”
• Adam, Cain, and Noah “all three worked the ground (2:15; 4:2; 9:20)”
• The stories of Adam, Cain, and Noah all contain “fruit that gives occasion for human transgression in the story (2:17; 4:3; 9:20–21)”[5]

Here we see, then, the story of humanity: a human being sins and falls, another fallen human being shames and condemns this person, then the human being who first fell condemns the fallen human being who shames! It is the story of Noah. It is the story of Ham. It is the story of all of us.

Sinful Noah condemns sinful Ham for condemning him. Noah resents his weakness being exposed and laughed at so he curses Canaan, Ham’s son. Some have questioned why Canaan and not Ham is cursed. Some suggest that this is a clue pointing to maternal incest as the original crime in this story and that Noah’s cursing of Canaan is evidence that Canaan was the result of an inappropriate act perpetrated by Ham against his mother, Noah’s wife. Others suggest that Canaan actually committed whatever deed was committed and that Ham’s name is used paternalistically as a substitute for his son’s. Again, I would caution against undue speculation. Regardless, the cursing of one of Ham’s descendants speaks to the ongoing nature of this cycle, of the continuation of the sin-shame-curse-sin-shame-curse cycle. Our actions never just stop with us, do they? They inevitably go on and on and on.

This is a sad, sad story of humanity’s ongoing cycle of sin and shame and cursing. I would like to propose to you that the darkness of this story makes the life of Jesus’ story that much clearer.

Jesus stepped into humanity’s weakness and shame in order to pronounce salvation.

We have commented before about how Jesus is a better Noah. Saying that means that there are similarities between Jesus and Noah, but that Jesus is greater in the end. The similarities are found in the fact that both Noah and Jesus were obedient, that both Noah and Jesus provided the only way of salvation out of God’s judgement, that both Noah’s and Jesus’ obedience provided security and certainty of divine deliverance, and that the result of both Noah’s and Jesus’ obedience was the true worship of God by redeemed humanity. But, of course, the dissimilarities are very important as well: the salvation that Noah offered was temporal whereas Jesus’ is eternal, Noah’s worship was imperfect, as we can see, whereas Jesus’ is perfect, and Noah remained a sinner throughout, though a noble man who sought God, whereas Jesus was the perfect lamb of God.

Our text this morning, however, provides the greatest contrast. Consider the nakedness of Noah and the nakedness of the crucified Christ. Traditionally, the Romans stripped their victims bare before crucifying them, though at times they could provide a loin cloth so as not to needlessly offend cultural sensibilities in a given location. Regardless, we see the stripping of Jesus, whether completely or not, in John 19:

²³ When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, ²⁴ so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things

Yes, here we see the greatest contrast. The nakedness of Noah was a result of his sinfulness. The nakedness of Christ was the result of His obedience to the Father’s will. The nakedness of Noah provided the occasion for his son to shame him unawares. The nakedness of the crucified Christ was knowingly undertaken by Jesus when He came to the cross and nobody snuck up on Him to shame Him: Jesus knew exactly what He had submitted Himself to! The nakedness of Noah was a sign of humanity’s degeneracy. The nakedness of Christ was the path to humanity’s salvation. The sons of Noah discreetly covered the nakedness of Noah so as to stop the shame. Christ refused all such coverings and embraced the full shame of humanity’s lostness. The nakedness of Noah led to anger and the pronouncement of a curse. But the naked Christ says, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do!” The nakedness of Noah is a sign of our fallen state. The nakedness of Noah is a sign that we fallen people can be raised up to salvation.

The nakedness of Noah continues the cycle of sin and shame and curses.

The nakedness of Christ on the cross shatters the cycle and pronounces life and forgiveness and salvation!

We turn from the nakedness of Noah in embarrassment!

We see the naked Christ crucified and sing hallelujah to a God who would love us like this!

Behold, Jesus:the better Noah, the greater Noah, the superior Noah, who steps into our nakedness and shame so that we can go home!

 

[1]Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Gen. Eds., R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), p.322-323.

[2]E.A. Speiser, Genesis. The Anchor Bible. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), p.61.

[3]James Montgomery Boice, Genesis. Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, ), p.398-399.

[4]Walter Brueggemann, Genesis. Interpretation. (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1982), p.89-90.

[5]Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1:11-26. The New American Commentary. Old Testament, vol. 1A (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, Publishers, 1996), 414-415.