A Study of the Curse of Canaan
Genesis 9:20-28
• Noah began to farm the soil,
planted a vineyard, got drunk on
the wine, and lay uncovered in his
tent (9:20-21).
• Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the
nakedness of his father and told his
two brothers outside (9:22).
• Shem and Japheth placed a
garment upon their shoulders
together and backed up and
covered the nakedness of their
father (9:23).
• The curse of Canaan (9:25).
• The blessing of Shem and
Japheth (9:26-27).
• The primary purpose of this passage is
to tell of the prophecy that was made
on this occasion.
• Elements of the prophecy:
• Canaan would be a servant of servants
unto his brethren (9:25).
• Shem would be elevated above Canaan
because Canaan would be his servant
(9:26b).
• Japheth would share the tents of Shem.
Meaning of the prophecy.
• The Canaanites would inhabit
the land of Canaan, but then it
would be given into the hands of
the Jews, the descendants of
Abraham (Gen. 12:7).
• The Canaanites would become
the servants of the Jews.
• God’s dealings with the Jews in the
Old Testament excluded the
Gentiles, the descendants of
Japheth.
• But in the day of the Messiah, the
Gentiles would share the blessings
of Shem because the gospel would
be preached to all the nations (Isa.
49:6; 2:2-4; 11:10, 12; Matt. 28:1820).
The contrast between the sin of
Noah and the sin of Ham.
• There is nothing specific stated in the
passage to show that God disapproved
of what Noah did.
• The fact is that the mere account of
Noah’s deed was sufficient in the
society in which he lived to show that
this was a very shameful episode in his
life.
• There are many, many passages
that condemn drunkenness, so that
a story in which drunkenness is
mentioned in a neutral manner
cannot be forced to say that God
did not disapprove of drunkenness,
just because He did not specifically
condemn it in this context.
Ham.
• Whatever the sin of Ham was, it
was treated as a much more
serious sin than Noah’s.
• Noah’s sin involved a weakness
of the flesh.
• Ham’s sin involved a sin against the order of
things.
• A person might in a moment of weakness
commit a sin of the flesh, but a person
whose attitude is improper toward the order
of things is one who is going to live a life of
rebellion, and his attitude will lead him into
disobedience.
• The difference in these two is also
illustrated in the behavior of Saul and
David.
• In other words, Ham violated the
relationship of respect that a son
should show a father.
• A son who shows such a lack of
respect to a father will also show a
similar lack of respect for law, and
for God.
• This sin is more fundamental and
far-reaching.
The curse.
• Note that the curse was not: “Cursed
be Ham,” but “Cursed be Canaan”
(9:25).
• Ham had other descendants besides
Canaan: Cush, Mizraim, and Put
(10:6).
• And from these three sons came very
many tribes and peoples (10:7-14).
• The displeasure of God was shown to Ham
by telling him of the disaster that awaited
the descendants of Canaan.
• We must be careful not to inject ideas of
pronouncing a curse upon someone through
magic incantation into this story.
• Such concepts are quite common in pagan
societies, as is reflected in a great deal of
English mythology.
• Such a “placing a curse” was what Balak
wanted Balaam to do in Numbers 22-24.
• A curse was viewed as the separation of
one from his loved ones or his society.
• A curse also consisted of whatever
disasters came upon a person, city, or
country.
• Such a curse was pronounced as
rebuke or punishment. Thus the person
“cursed” deserved what they got.
• I believe that the basic outline of the
prophecy regarding what happened to
Canaan and to Shem and Japheth
would have happened anyway because
the prophecy is a broad outline of the
scheme of redemption.
• But the telling of the disaster that
would befall Canaan’s descendants was
a rebuke to Ham, and an indication of
God’s displeasure.
• As we read a story such as this one, we
may question why God did not come
down really hard on Noah for his
drunkenness, and did come down so
hard on Ham for what he did.
• In doing so, we are making the
judgment that what Noah did was a lot
worse than what Ham did, and we are
setting up our judgment above the
judgment of God.
• Or we can say, obviously God
considered the sin of Ham greater
than the sin of Noah. Now let me
understand why.
• My place is not to evaluate whether
God did the right thing or not in
any given event, but to understand
what His thinking was in what He
did.
Conclusion:
• This story is important in the
Bible record because of the
prophecy it contains of the
future of the plan of
redemption.
• Secondary, but still important,
is what the sin of Ham involved.
• We must always remember to
focus on the things that God is
emphasizing rather than on the
things He is not.
• And we must be careful not to
draw unwarranted conclusions.