# Ham's Sin



## vkochetta

I have been working through the OT Series on the RTS/iTunes site by Richard Pratt.

He mentioned that Ham's sin might have involved homosexual activity with Noah.

I had not come across this before and doesn't seem to be in the texts of the English translations I have looked at.

Are there Hebrew vocabulary or OT euphemisms that might be pointing to this?

Thanks,

--- Vinny Kochetta


----------



## DMcFadden

Just the normal notion that the Hebrew euphemism typically refers to sexual activity. Sexuality activity between two men . . .


----------



## Thomas2007

I've heard that before, it is incorrect and a failure to properly exegete the text. They are reading their own interpretation into it about his father's nakedness - when Scripture defines the meaning of these terms.

The text tells you precisely what Ham did. He fathered Caanan. It tells you that in verse 18, "and Ham is the father of Canaan;" then again in verse 22, "And Ham, the father of Canaan."

Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, which Leviticus 20:11 tells us means: "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness..."

Canaan is a brother to Ham, Shem and Japeth - and Ham is his father. (Genesis 9:25-27) Now, go back and re-read Genesis 9:18-29 and this section should make a lot more sense, beginning right there at verse 18 when it introduces the sons of Noah, but is sure to point out that Canaan is the son of Ham.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Can't prove it but I believe there was something unclean done.


----------



## BobVigneault

So Thomas, if Ham 'slept with his mother then what does it mean that Shem and Japeth, walked backwards and covered their father's nakedness? This is interesting.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Bob Vincent recently covered this in a podcast I got. I thinks he's on the money.

SermonAudio.com - Ham


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I believe Canaan is clearly the "guilty" person here.

I don't believe Ham is the "youngest" son, rather, Canaan is the "youngest," the same as in a list of the sons of David (Mt.1) Jesus is the "youngest" Son of David in that list. Canaan is also a son, albeit a grandson, of Noah, and to this moment in the text, the youngest one listed.

Canaan is cursed, ergo Canaan is the guilty party (of whatever), unless it can be shown otherwise. My guess, though far from dogmatic--it was a case of publicized contempt of the patriarch, a violation of the 5th commandment (to speak a little anachronistically). In other words,, something that would have been better kept a private sin on Noah's part, became public fodder for mockery.

Ham is ashamed. Ham cannot fix the situation. Ham must get his brothers to solve the problem. FAR too much has been read into Ham's "telling his brothers." If one has not already decided Ham is guilty of something, this is not a part of the problem, but a means to a solution to the problem.


----------



## A5pointer

It seems to me to have been a sexual act. If not, very much is made of just "seeing naked". These things shock our modern western sensabilities but seem to be part of the biblical record. I think the same thing can be seen in Ruth and with David and Abishag.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

vkochetta said:


> I have been working through the OT Series on the RTS/iTunes site by Richard Pratt.
> 
> He mentioned that Ham's sin might have involved homosexual activity with Noah.
> 
> I had not come across this before and doesn't seem to be in the texts of the English translations I have looked at.
> 
> Are there Hebrew vocabulary or OT euphemisms that might be pointing to this?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --- Vinny Kochetta




Look at Robert Gagnon's website for info.


----------



## DMcFadden

Thomas2007 said:


> I've heard that before, it is incorrect and a failure to properly exegete the text. They are reading their own interpretation into it about his father's nakedness - when Scripture defines the meaning of these terms.



I'm not sure about the motives of the people Vinny is reading/talking to, but I was simply answering his question, not expressing agreement with that view.


----------



## greenbaggins

Surely, "seeing the nakedness of someone" is not always the same as having sexual relations with someone. It can mean that, but it does not have to mean that. In the text of Genesis itself, it is clear that Noah lay uncovered in his tent. He was naked in his tent. This makes it extremely unlikely that Ham had sexual relations with Noah's wife. The subject of nakedness is Noah himself. Therefore, the usual interpretation of Noah being there naked, and Ham happening upon him naked makes the most sense. The contrast of Ham's behavior with Shem and Japheth's behavior makes it clear that Ham's behavior was not honoring to Noah, whereas Shem and Japheth were honoring. It is not too much of a stretch, then, to suppose that when Ham talked about it with his brothers, it was in a "Hey, did you see our dumb dad? He's lying there naked in the tent! What a sot!" kind of way. It was not a sin to happen upon Noah naked. It was what he did do and what he did not do that made him at fault. Remember also that sin is covenantal, especially honoring one's parents. Just as Ham the _son_ of Noah did not honor Noah, the curse came upon Ham's _son_. The punishment fits the crime. See here for my sermon on the passage.


----------



## vkochetta

I think the comment I heard from the lecture was mostly as an "aside" and not really the main point of his lesson. He didn't give any rationale or support.

Not knowing Hebrew and being unfamiliar with their cultural phrases, I thought I'd throw the question out there.

Some of the replies tie in Lev 18:9 and Lev 20:11-20 for similar uses of language.

Although I am comfortable with the plain reading of the text, the perspective that it was a physical violation does seem to explain the harshness of the curse.

I'm always learning and always open to godly, thoughtful input. Thanks for your replies

---Vinny


----------



## greenbaggins

vkochetta said:


> I think the comment I heard from the lecture was mostly as an "aside" and not really the main point of his lesson. He didn't give any rationale or support.
> 
> Not knowing Hebrew and being unfamiliar with their cultural phrases, I thought I'd throw the question out there.
> 
> Some of the replies tie in Lev 18:9 and Lev 20:11-20 for similar uses of language.
> 
> Although I am comfortable with the plain reading of the text, the perspective that it was a physical violation does seem to explain the harshness of the curse.
> 
> I'm always learning and always open to godly, thoughtful input. Thanks for your replies
> 
> ---Vinny



It is certainly a possible reading of the text. However, the harshness of the curse can also be explained by the fact that honor and shame were much more important to that generation (especially given the connections noted in my sermon between Adam and Noah), and nakedness was much more serious then than it is to us. The consciousness of Adam's nakedness would have been heavy on Noah's mind, especially since there was only one link necessary genealogically between Noah and Adam. I.e., Noah would have been talking with one person who knew Adam. The Adam connection also makes the simple nakedness interpretation much more convincing.


----------



## Calvin'scuz

Contra_Mundum said:


> Canaan is cursed, ergo Canaan is the guilty party (of whatever), unless it can be shown otherwise. My guess, though far from dogmatic--it was a case of publicized contempt of the patriarch, a violation of the 5th commandment (to speak a little anachronistically). In other words,, something that would have been better kept a private sin on Noah's part, became public fodder for mockery.



This is similar to the explanation I've heard, namely that the father was responsible for the negligent acts of his son. So if Noah would have cursed Ham for what was done he would have brought condemnation upon himself. Therefore, to place the shame on the actual perpetrator (Ham), he cursed Canaan (the son of Ham) so that Ham would be condemned for his own act. If this is the correct viewpoint, it appears to be a purely forensic solution for attributing blame and condemnation.

Hey....but I could be wrong.


----------



## A5pointer

Are we imposing our sensibility on the text? The Leviticus passage should be enough for us. We all accept scripture interprets scripture. It should be as shocking to us that a people is cursed for the sin of looking on a drunk father naked. It just does not make sense. Yes it says Noah fell asleep naked but this is no less a part of the euphemism as is the act and the description of the act and of the brothers not participating in the same act. We as moderns are well aware of euphemisms used to describe sexual acts. It may well be that biblical writers used them as we would, to be less vulgar and or to shield the graphic description from the youth. The later makes sense as the books of Moses would have been read to the masses. I understand the suggested interpretations but think they are based(not intentionally) on predetermined thoughts rather than bare acknowledgement of the text.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

We all seem to be tossing out our observations here, without berating one another for different opinions, which is a good thing. I think it gives those without commentaries several options to think through.

For my part, the least ambiguous piece of the narrative is the first verse of the pericope: 9:18. There four of Noah's "sons" are named as the introductory words. Even if there were questions regarding the 3 immediate sons' birth order, Canaan was born after the flood. Canaan is the youngest son in this context. Noah curses Canaan for what his youngest son did to him--whatever that was.

This whole matter culminates in Moses' day with the Israelites preparing to expel the Canaanites from the land--i.e., curse fulfilled.


----------



## staythecourse

> Surely, "seeing the nakedness of someone" is not always the same as having sexual relations with someone. It can mean that, but it does not have to mean that. In the text of Genesis itself, it is clear that Noah lay uncovered in his tent. He was naked in his tent. This makes it extremely unlikely that Ham had sexual relations with Noah's wife. The subject of nakedness is Noah himself. Therefore, the usual interpretation of Noah being there naked, and Ham happening upon him naked makes the most sense. The contrast of Ham's behavior with Shem and Japheth's behavior makes it clear that Ham's behavior was not honoring to Noah, whereas Shem and Japheth were honoring. It is not too much of a stretch, then, to suppose that when Ham talked about it with his brothers, it was in a "Hey, did you see our dumb dad? He's lying there naked in the tent! What a sot!" kind of way. It was not a sin to happen upon Noah naked. It was what he did do and what he did not do that made him at fault. Remember also that sin is covenantal, especially honoring one's parents. Just as Ham the son of Noah did not honor Noah, the curse came upon Ham's son. The punishment fits the crime. See here for my sermon on the passage.



Thanks. That's the way I have always interpreted it as well. The way the story is told, with the brothers purposefully not viewing their naked father makes it simple to envision. I was aware of the definition of uncovering a fathers nakedness with incest and usually prefer to have Scripture interpret Scripture, but I have to make an exception for it here because of the brothers remedy of Noah's dishonorable (naked and drunk) state.


----------



## kalawine

A5pointer said:


> Are we imposing our sensibility on the text? The Leviticus passage should be enough for us. We all accept scripture interprets scripture. It should be as shocking to us that a people is cursed for the sin of looking on a drunk father naked. It just does not make sense. Yes it says Noah fell asleep naked but this is no less a part of the euphemism as is the act and the description of the act and of the brothers not participating in the same act. We as moderns are well aware of euphemisms used to describe sexual acts. It may well be that biblical writers used them as we would, to be less vulgar and or to shield the graphic description from the youth. The later makes sense as the books of Moses would have been read to the masses. I understand the suggested interpretations but think they are based(not intentionally) on predetermined thoughts rather than bare acknowledgement of the text.



You've got it. I see no way around your interpretation. Everyone else seems to be either using a modern mind set to interpret a biblical text (a no-no) or they are telling what they "think." Scripture does a great job of interpreting Scripture!


----------



## staythecourse

Good point, but how do we then interpret the brothers backing up with a covering? It makes no sense to me with the incest interpretation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For consideration, see Matthew Poole's _Synopsis_, Genesis 9, which is available online for free here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here are texts that use this language: Of all, which of them indicates _explicitly _sexual intercourse?
Gen 42:9 And Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed of them. And he said to them, "You are spies; you have come to *see the nakedness* of the land."

Lev 20:17 "If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and *sees her nakedness*, and she *sees his nakedness*, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.

Deu 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not *see anything indecent* among you and turn away from you. (indecent is same word for naked)

Isa 47:3 Your *nakedness* shall be uncovered, and your disgrace *shall be seen*. I will take vengeance, and I will spare no one. (here, the terms are disjunctive, but appear in parallel)

Lam 1:8 Jerusalem sinned grievously; therefore she became filthy; all who honored her despise her, for they have *seen her nakedness*; she herself groans and turns her face away. 

Eze 16:37 therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may *see all your nakedness*.

Nah 3:5 Behold, I am against you, declares the LORD of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will make nations *look at your nakedness* and kingdoms at your shame. (different word for nakedness)

Hab 2:15 "Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink-- you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to *gaze at their nakedness*! (different words for both gaze and nakedness)​Feel free to add to the list, but please note whether the language is identical or related.

My point is one that was made before by someone else:
_One reference in Leviticus does not provide all you need to make Noah's a case of sexual assault, or incest._ Beside which above, it was 20:11 that was appealed to, a verse using the active language of "uncovering", as it does numerous times in Lev. 18 & 20; but not using the language of "seeing" (as found ONLY in 20:17, out of the whole two chapters).

Several steps are being taken in the process of "correlation" with regard to the father's nakedness in Lev. 20:11. That "uncovering" is being put down in place of "seeing" (the word found in Gen. 9:22), as if it was just a synonym. Noah's wife is being gratuitously introduced into the whole affair. This, in my view, is not judicious "analogy of Scripture" interpretation, but emphasizing similarities (in two texts!) at the expense of marked differences, nor letting the entirety of the Scripture witness come to bear.

Gen 9:21 uses the "uncovered" term, but passively of Noah of himself. Here's another example of the word for "uncovered": Exo 20:26 "And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not *exposed* on it." Here is "uncovered" being used simply for "exposure."

The point of nakedness in all these passages is the exposure of it. There is only a narrow range where this kind of exposure is not shameful. Otherwise it is shameful to everyone involved. But I cannot see any necessity of inferring a case of illicit sexual behavior in all of these instances, not even metaphorically. The "looking" seems sufficient, except where it clearly implies a prelude to sexual activity.


----------



## A5pointer

staythecourse said:


> Good point, but how do we then interpret the brothers backing up with a covering? It makes no sense to me with the incest interpretation.



Just a way of saying they refused to participate after being invited to do so.


----------



## A5pointer

Bruce, Thank you for running up the passages. At a general glance there seem to be common characteristics of shame, sexual activity and even forced sexual activity. Seems much more than bare exposure even in the case of the spies. Not necessarily sexual there but a covert uncovering as spying implies. These texts to me confirm that inappropriate sex possibly rape was involved in the Noah account. 

Hold on to your hats, I also think we are to see sex here too. Again, with out normal sensibilities we would not even detect it. How could Naomi hatch such a plan? 

3 Wash and perfume yourself, and put on your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don't let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do." 
5 "I will do whatever you say," Ruth answered. 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do. 

7 When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 In the middle of the night something startled the man, and he turned and discovered a woman lying at his feet.


----------



## greenbaggins

There are two problems with interpreting Ruth in this fashion (which is becoming somewhat common among modern interpreters). Firstly, Boaz was asleep. Secondly, such action is immoral, and would hardly receive the kind of praise that Boaz gives Ruth. Now, it is possible that uncovering the feet means more than taking Boaz's sandals off. At the very least, Ruth being there on the threshing floor with Boaz is a compromising position (otherwise, there would have been no need to leave before dawn). However, it goes well beyond the text to say that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor, in my opinion.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> There are two problems with interpreting Ruth in this fashion (which is becoming somewhat common among modern interpreters). Firstly, *Boaz was asleep. Secondly, such action is immoral, and would hardly receive the kind of praise that Boaz gives Ruth*. Now, it is possible that uncovering the feet means more than taking Boaz's sandals off. At the very least, Ruth being there on the threshing floor with Boaz is a compromising position (otherwise, there would have been no need to leave before dawn). However, it goes well beyond the text to say that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor, in my opinion.



Lane Hi, Sorry I left this out.

9 "Who are you?" he asked. 
"I am your servant Ruth," she said. *"Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer*." Are we to say Ruth was merely cold? It just does not make sense.

1. Boaz woke up.

2. You are saying it "cant" be a certain way. I believe this is the mistake. Again trying to sanitize the text based on presupposition. We all know bible characters do not always act as we say "rightly". In this same vein we do not find David condemned for his many wives and concubines nor do we see the practice of slavery condemned. I am not suggesting these things are right in God's eyes just saying we need to recognize texts without assuming things "can't" be because God seems silent on them.

3. I think Ruth leaving early signals much more than "a compromising position" 

4. We can't throw out ideas just because they seem to receive a modern consensus. Baby with the bath water.

 sorry, 4 cents worth


----------



## staythecourse

To me the purity of honorable Boaz and honorable Ruth is completely tarnished in the idea that sexual intercourse took place between the two on the threshing floor.

Boaz and Ruth were honorable people to the point that you cannot find sin in their lives (as far as I am concerned) in the whole story. They were reputable. Ruth was showing high submission to Boaz with the sleeping at his feet and giving him chilly toes. When she told him to cover her as a kinsman redeemer he was moved by the entire act (without sex) and love prompted him to marry her (in so many words). 

Henry and I agree (him being more beautiful in speech than myself) and says



> But she would not willingly be known to be a night-walker, for her virtue was her greatest honour, and that which she most valued. Boaz dismissed her, 1. With a charge to keep counsel (v. 14): Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor, and lay all night so near to Boaz; for, though they needed not to care much what people said of them while they were both conscious to themselves of an unspotted purity, yet, because few could have come so near the fire as they did and not have been scorched, had it been known it would have occasioned suspicions in some and reflections from others.



Lets not tarnish the Scripture or characters (our forefathers and mothers) when wording may not call for it.


----------



## greenbaggins

A5pointer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with interpreting Ruth in this fashion (which is becoming somewhat common among modern interpreters). Firstly, *Boaz was asleep. Secondly, such action is immoral, and would hardly receive the kind of praise that Boaz gives Ruth*. Now, it is possible that uncovering the feet means more than taking Boaz's sandals off. At the very least, Ruth being there on the threshing floor with Boaz is a compromising position (otherwise, there would have been no need to leave before dawn). However, it goes well beyond the text to say that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Hi, Sorry I left this out.
> 
> 9 "Who are you?" he asked.
> "I am your servant Ruth," she said. *"Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer*." Are we to say Ruth was merely cold? It just does not make sense.
> 
> 1. Boaz woke up.
> 
> 2. You are saying it "cant" be a certain way. I believe this is the mistake. Again trying to sanitize the text based on presupposition. We all know bible characters do not always act as we say "rightly". In this same vein we do not find David condemned for his many wives and concubines nor do we see the practice of slavery condemned. I am not suggesting these things are right in God's eyes just saying we need to recognize texts without assuming things "can't" be because God seems silent on them.
> 
> 3. I think Ruth leaving early signals much more than "a compromising position"
> 
> 4. We can't throw out ideas just because they seem to receive a modern consensus. Baby with the bath water.
> 
> sorry, 4 cents worth
Click to expand...


Your arguments do not answer my position. My position is that it is possible that Ruth uncovered more than Boaz's feet (though the text is not forced in this direction: it could be that uncovering the literal feet was seen as a compromising position). When Ruth asked Boaz to spread the corner of the garment over her, she was asking for marriage. A proposal of marriage does not prove that sex has taken place ahead of time. The shame involved in being discovered together would not have been any different whether they had sex or not. This is (ironically) where your modern jadedness towards things sexual is getting in the way. You think that the shame involved could only be explained by the idea that they actually had sex. I am saying that the shame could equally have come from the fact that people who would have discovered them together would have _thought_ that they had had sex. That explains the text equally well. So I am not trying to sanitize the text by my presuppositions. I am fully aware that the Bible tells the unvarnished truth about the sin of believers. But your scenario does not fit the words of Boaz when he praises Ruth for her _hesed_, her covenantal faithfulness to the people of God, and therefore her faithfulness to God. Your scenario has Boaz calling evil good. And since the Bible nowhere corrects Boaz's faulty understanding of Ruth's actions, your interpretation winds up making the Bible call evil good.


----------



## A5pointer

staythecourse said:


> *To me the purity of honorable Boaz and honorable Ruth is completely tarnished in the idea that sexual intercourse took place between the two on the threshing floor.*
> 
> Boaz and Ruth were honorable people to the point that you cannot find sin in their lives (as far as I am concerned) in the whole story. They were reputable. Ruth was showing high submission to Boaz with the sleeping at his feet and giving him chilly toes. When she told him to cover her as a kinsman redeemer he was moved by the entire act (without sex) and love prompted him to marry her (in so many words).
> 
> Henry and I agree (him being more beautiful in speech than myself) and says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But she would not willingly be known to be a night-walker, for her virtue was her greatest honour, and that which she most valued. Boaz dismissed her, 1. With a charge to keep counsel (v. 14): Let it not be known that a woman came into the floor, and lay all night so near to Boaz; *for, though they needed not to care much what people said of them while they were both conscious to themselves of an unspotted purity, yet, because few could have come so near the fire as they did and not have been scorched, had it been known it would have occasioned suspicions in some and reflections from others.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not tarnish the Scripture or characters (our forefathers and mothers) when wording may not call for it.
Click to expand...


Brother Bryan, we just disagree. Whether your interpretation is right or wrong, your words make my point. You are assuming what cannot be and starting your interpretation from there. This does not prove you will end up wrong but suggests an error in method and a bias for an outcome. in my opinion Mr. Henry shows great imagination in his opinion. I am not aware of any biblical record showing the ancients concerns of the modesty that he suggests.


----------



## A5pointer

greenbaggins said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with interpreting Ruth in this fashion (which is becoming somewhat common among modern interpreters). Firstly, *Boaz was asleep. Secondly, such action is immoral, and would hardly receive the kind of praise that Boaz gives Ruth*. Now, it is possible that uncovering the feet means more than taking Boaz's sandals off. At the very least, Ruth being there on the threshing floor with Boaz is a compromising position (otherwise, there would have been no need to leave before dawn). However, it goes well beyond the text to say that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Hi, Sorry I left this out.
> 
> 9 "Who are you?" he asked.
> "I am your servant Ruth," she said. *"Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer*." Are we to say Ruth was merely cold? It just does not make sense.
> 
> 1. Boaz woke up.
> 
> 2. You are saying it "cant" be a certain way. I believe this is the mistake. Again trying to sanitize the text based on presupposition. We all know bible characters do not always act as we say "rightly". In this same vein we do not find David condemned for his many wives and concubines nor do we see the practice of slavery condemned. I am not suggesting these things are right in God's eyes just saying we need to recognize texts without assuming things "can't" be because God seems silent on them.
> 
> 3. I think Ruth leaving early signals much more than "a compromising position"
> 
> 4. We can't throw out ideas just because they seem to receive a modern consensus. Baby with the bath water.
> 
> sorry, 4 cents worth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not answer my position. My position is that it is possible that Ruth uncovered more than Boaz's feet (though the text is not forced in this direction: it could be that uncovering the literal feet was seen as a compromising position). When Ruth asked Boaz to spread the corner of the garment over her, she was asking for marriage. A proposal of marriage does not prove that sex has taken place ahead of time. The shame involved in being discovered together would not have been any different whether they had sex or not. This is (ironically) where your modern jadedness towards things sexual is getting in the way. You think that the shame involved could only be explained by the idea that they actually had sex. I am saying that the shame could equally have come from the fact that people who would have discovered them together would have _thought_ that they had had sex. That explains the text equally well. So I am not trying to sanitize the text by my presuppositions. I am fully aware that the Bible tells the unvarnished truth about the sin of believers. *But your scenario does not fit the words of Boaz when he praises Ruth for her hesed, her covenantal faithfulness to the people of God, and therefore her faithfulness to God*. Your scenario has Boaz calling evil good. And since the Bible nowhere corrects Boaz's faulty understanding of Ruth's actions, your interpretation winds up making the Bible call evil good.
Click to expand...


Lane, I think you are reading morality into this praise where it may not be warranted or expected. Could it be her covenant faithfulness is expressed by her return to Israel from Moab forsaking her natural decendants for Israel's, culminating in the taking of a Jewish kinsman?


----------



## greenbaggins

A5pointer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with interpreting Ruth in this fashion (which is becoming somewhat common among modern interpreters). Firstly, *Boaz was asleep. Secondly, such action is immoral, and would hardly receive the kind of praise that Boaz gives Ruth*. Now, it is possible that uncovering the feet means more than taking Boaz's sandals off. At the very least, Ruth being there on the threshing floor with Boaz is a compromising position (otherwise, there would have been no need to leave before dawn). However, it goes well beyond the text to say that Ruth had sex with Boaz on the threshing floor, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Hi, Sorry I left this out.
> 
> 9 "Who are you?" he asked.
> "I am your servant Ruth," she said. *"Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer*." Are we to say Ruth was merely cold? It just does not make sense.
> 
> 1. Boaz woke up.
> 
> 2. You are saying it "cant" be a certain way. I believe this is the mistake. Again trying to sanitize the text based on presupposition. We all know bible characters do not always act as we say "rightly". In this same vein we do not find David condemned for his many wives and concubines nor do we see the practice of slavery condemned. I am not suggesting these things are right in God's eyes just saying we need to recognize texts without assuming things "can't" be because God seems silent on them.
> 
> 3. I think Ruth leaving early signals much more than "a compromising position"
> 
> 4. We can't throw out ideas just because they seem to receive a modern consensus. Baby with the bath water.
> 
> sorry, 4 cents worth
Click to expand...




A5pointer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lane Hi, Sorry I left this out.
> 
> 9 "Who are you?" he asked.
> "I am your servant Ruth," she said. *"Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer*." Are we to say Ruth was merely cold? It just does not make sense.
> 
> 1. Boaz woke up.
> 
> 2. You are saying it "cant" be a certain way. I believe this is the mistake. Again trying to sanitize the text based on presupposition. We all know bible characters do not always act as we say "rightly". In this same vein we do not find David condemned for his many wives and concubines nor do we see the practice of slavery condemned. I am not suggesting these things are right in God's eyes just saying we need to recognize texts without assuming things "can't" be because God seems silent on them.
> 
> 3. I think Ruth leaving early signals much more than "a compromising position"
> 
> 4. We can't throw out ideas just because they seem to receive a modern consensus. Baby with the bath water.
> 
> sorry, 4 cents worth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments do not answer my position. My position is that it is possible that Ruth uncovered more than Boaz's feet (though the text is not forced in this direction: it could be that uncovering the literal feet was seen as a compromising position). When Ruth asked Boaz to spread the corner of the garment over her, she was asking for marriage. A proposal of marriage does not prove that sex has taken place ahead of time. The shame involved in being discovered together would not have been any different whether they had sex or not. This is (ironically) where your modern jadedness towards things sexual is getting in the way. You think that the shame involved could only be explained by the idea that they actually had sex. I am saying that the shame could equally have come from the fact that people who would have discovered them together would have _thought_ that they had had sex. That explains the text equally well. So I am not trying to sanitize the text by my presuppositions. I am fully aware that the Bible tells the unvarnished truth about the sin of believers. *But your scenario does not fit the words of Boaz when he praises Ruth for her hesed, her covenantal faithfulness to the people of God, and therefore her faithfulness to God*. Your scenario has Boaz calling evil good. And since the Bible nowhere corrects Boaz's faulty understanding of Ruth's actions, your interpretation winds up making the Bible call evil good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lane, I think you are reading morality into this praise where it may not be warranted or expected. Could it be her covenant faithfulness is expressed by her return to Israel from Moab forsaking her natural decendants for Israel's, culminating in the taking of a Jewish kinsman?
Click to expand...


The context forbids such an interpretation. Boaz actually says that there is more kindness at the end than at the beginning. I don't how to interpret this other than to say that Ruth's entire actions from coming with Naomi to what she just did are all characterised by hesed. But this latter end is more hesed than the beginning, plainly drawing a contrast between Ruth's previous kindness and this consummate kindness. Show me one instance where hesed is used in the Bible without morality being involved.


----------



## A5pointer

*Show me one instance where hesed is used in the Bible without morality being involved.*

Lance, seems like a fair question worth looking into. It is outside of my back ground and training but I will consult a friend who should know. Thank you for the conversation.(mods make sure I get credit for the "thanks" )


----------



## py3ak

Bryan made a very good point earlier. The law of charity does not cease to operate when come to the interpretation of Scripture. Therefore while we should never be afraid to identify sin as such, nor should we be surprised when sin appears in the lives of the Biblical characters, we should be very careful of attributing sin _to brothers in Christ_ whose name appears in the Biblical record where Scripture is not explicit. I believe it is a failing of charity on our part (which leads to prejudiced hermeneutics) when we attribute sin where the text or the analogy of Scripture does not explicitly demand it.


----------



## ImagoDei

When I read the story of Noah's drunkenness and all the events that surrounded it, I'm struck with how much we evidently are NOT told in the story.

We don't know what Ham really did. We don't know what role Canaan had. We don't know what Noah was or was not doing. We don't know why Canaan was cursed rather than Ham or any of Ham's other sons (or daughters).

Oddly enough, aside from it being an inspired narrative (and therefore true to fact), God does not even offer any commentary associated with the story. (God doesn't even tell us that Noah was justified to pronounce such a harsh curse upon his grandson!) 

So, it is only an historical narrative. We cannot justify drawing far-reaching conclusions based upon a narrative alone. It must have divine commentary upon it before it becomes prescriptive in any way. The best it can be is illustrative of another passage of Scripture, if indeed one exists which would speak to the narrative. (eg. "honor your father and mother..." is obviously NOT followed in the story).

My conclusion from this particular story is that the only thing we can learn for sure from it is the history of the curse upon Canaan which would later be fully fulfilled when the Israelites entered the promised land.

I do not believe that any other conclusions based upon this story are exegetically defensible.

And Rev. Keister, I read through your sermon but I find that I cannot agree with your assertion that the key to its correct interpretation lies in recognizing that Noah is a second "Adam." While you've drawn some interesting parallels, your statement of that correlation still does not rise above speculation, since God does not so declare it to be true. And since that forms the foundation of your interpretation of the passage, I feel that your entire interpretation could be on very shaky ground.

The Bible DOES speak of a "second" Adam... but only in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm content to not know exactly what happened or why. Evidently God did not consider it important enough for us to know. 

I.D.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> I do not believe that any other conclusions based upon this story are exegetically defensible.


Where, exactly is the argument for this claim? _Some_ exegesis was offered for _some_ of the attempts at explaining this passage. So, thanks for your opinion that this text teaches us basically... nothing.


> I'm content to not know exactly what happened or why. Evidently God did not consider it important enough for us to know.


Just a point of historical curiosity? Noah cursed Ham. He wasn't even justified in doing so--maybe?


> God doesn't even tell us that Noah was justified to pronounce such a harsh curse upon his grandson!




You've accused a well-trained minister of Christ of speculating--basically leading his flock down a primrose path. No one here is immune from criticism, but frankly you've offered nothing but your insubstantial opinions, which results in a pretty impoverished appreciation for the text.

What you "feel" is pretty irrelevant,


> I feel that your entire interpretation could be on very shaky ground.


 and I wonder how you would 1) get anything out of sitting under the ministration of Christ by a Reformed preacher, preaching the whole counsel of God, preaching the very Scripture that all spake of Christ (by His own testimony); and 2) preach this passage yourself? And if you can't preach it, what makes you think you are a competent judge of the labors of one of Christ's servants?

Has it occurred to you that your inability to see, for example, the "scouring" of the earth, and its essential renovation, and starting-over with a new beginning, a new family--indeed a new "father of the race" (what would you call such an "Adam-redux"?)--maybe this indicates you should be prepared to learn something? That perhaps you have been inexpertly fed by preparers of the heavenly bread _less competent_, less well prepared for their divinely appointed task as breakers of that living bread?

I guess I am more than a little surprised that as your first post anyplace on this board you should have chosen to belittle the labors of a called man of God, someone who has gone through preparation and examination for his position, that frankly, if you have not studied what it takes to become a Presbyterian minister in a Confessional denomination, *you have not a clue*. And then, of course, you have questioned the competence of the session and the congregations that have called him to their service. Imagine, them choosing a man so "slipshod" in his preparation...

Personally, I found your *dogmatic agnosticism* on this text far more objectionable than the several _erroneous_ interpretations (in my opinion) that were argued for.


----------



## ImagoDei

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do not believe that any other conclusions based upon this story are exegetically defensible.
> 
> 
> 
> Where, exactly is the argument for this claim? _Some_ exegesis was offered for _some_ of the attempts at explaining this passage. So, thanks for your opinion that this text teaches us basically... nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm content to not know exactly what happened or why. Evidently God did not consider it important enough for us to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a point of historical curiosity? Noah cursed Ham. He wasn't even justified in doing so--maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even tell us that Noah was justified to pronounce such a harsh curse upon his grandson!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've accused a well-trained minister of Christ of speculating--basically leading his flock down a primrose path. No one here is immune from criticism, but frankly you've offered nothing but your insubstantial opinions, which results in a pretty impoverished appreciation for the text.
> 
> What you "feel" is pretty irrelevant,
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that your entire interpretation could be on very shaky ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I wonder how you would 1) get anything out of sitting under the ministration of Christ by a Reformed preacher, preaching the whole counsel of God, preaching the very Scripture that all spake of Christ (by His own testimony); and 2) preach this passage yourself? And if you can't preach it, what makes you think you are a competent judge of the labors of one of Christ's servants?
> 
> Has it occurred to you that your inability to see, for example, the "scouring" of the earth, and its essential renovation, and starting-over with a new beginning, a new family--indeed a new "father of the race" (what would you call such an "Adam-redux"?)--maybe this indicates you should be prepared to learn something? That perhaps you have been inexpertly fed by preparers of the heavenly bread _less competent_, less well prepared for their divinely appointed task as breakers of that living bread?
> 
> I guess I am more than a little surprised that as your first post anyplace on this board you should have chosen to belittle the labors of a called man of God, someone who has gone through preparation and examination for his position, that frankly, if you have not studied what it takes to become a Presbyterian minister in a Confessional denomination, *you have not a clue*. And then, of course, you have questioned the competence of the session and the congregations that have called him to their service. Imagine, them choosing a man so "slipshod" in his preparation...
> 
> Personally, I found your *dogmatic agnosticism* on this text far more objectionable than the several _erroneous_ interpretations (in my opinion) that were argued for.
Click to expand...


In my understanding, exegesis is about determining as objectively as possible what a text MUST mean. And if that is not possible, then to determine and present several plausible interpretations. At that point, we have the freedom to offer an opinion on which interpretation we believe to be strongest, but it is still an opinion at that point.

The idea that there was homosexual activity is plausible, but we have no Scriptural proof that was the case.

The idea that Ham had relations with his mother and that Canaan was the fruit of that union is plausible, but certainly not clearly stated.

The idea that Noah is a secondary Adam is plausible, but again, it is not clearly stated in Scripture, therefore its support lies only in the realm of human reasoning. It should be presented as such. 

[For the record, my opinion is not unsubstantiated, it is substantiated by the very fact that his claim that Noah is a "second Adam" and that somehow he is "officially" reenacting the fall is simply not stated in the Bible. All anyone need do to refute my claim is to demonstrate where the Scriptures explicitly support his claim. ]

I know nothing of the man you accused me of so severely disrespecting. I assure that it was not a personal attack. I will remind you that you also know nothing of me, yet you felt free to speak very disrespectfully towards me. How have you acted more nobly than I?

I would rather that we allow our own statements to stand for themselves. If I have misrepresented the truth in any of my statements, you are free to demonstrate my error before everyone. 

If you want me to offer more substantiation for anything I have stated, please ask. I assure you that I can defend my claims well.

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do not believe that any other conclusions based upon this story are exegetically defensible.
> 
> 
> 
> Where, exactly is the argument for this claim? _Some_ exegesis was offered for _some_ of the attempts at explaining this passage. So, thanks for your opinion that this text teaches us basically... nothing.
Click to expand...

You've read all the various ideas that have been presented. They vary vastly. How then can we be sure which one is exegetically accurate? We can't. 

Therefore, what can we learn from this story? 1. A sketch of what actually happened. 2. When and where the curse upon Canaan originated. 3. There are penalties for disobeying the 5th commandment and it is illustrated here in this story. 4. The sinfulness (and stupidity) of drunkenness is illustrated. (both 3 & 4 are clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. They are not stated here at all, but they are illustrated.)

As I stated before, it is a narrative which God offers no commentary upon. If God offers no clear explanation and interpretation of the narrative, how can any one of us be so confident that we have it right?


> I'm content to not know exactly what happened or why. Evidently God did not consider it important enough for us to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a point of historical curiosity?
Click to expand...

There are many stories in the Scriptures for which we have little clear understanding. And in this case, I've lined out 4 worthwhile things we CAN learn from this passage... why must it have further meaning if God did not see fit to make it plain to us? Isn't that a recipe for error?


> Noah cursed Ham. He wasn't even justified in doing so--maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't even tell us that Noah was justified to pronounce such a harsh curse upon his grandson!
Click to expand...

I did not claim that it wasn't justified. I personally find that the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime as it is related to us, but I will stop well short of claiming that it was too harsh. I rather have concluded that there must be much more to the story than we are told, and that therefore, the justification for Noah's curse is (and will remain) beyond my knowing. And... as I said... I am content with that.


> You've accused a well-trained minister of Christ of speculating--basically leading his flock down a primrose path. No one here is immune from criticism, but frankly you've offered nothing but your insubstantial opinions, which results in a pretty impoverished appreciation for the text.


My understanding is not "impoverished," it is honest. It is realistic. God didn't tell us more, so I will not claim that I know more.

I made no accusation to this brother regarding how he is leading his flock. He posted his sermon here for our review, and I reviewed it. I disagreed publicly (where he posted it) and nothing more. Why do you rebuke me?


> What you "feel" is pretty irrelevant,
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that your entire interpretation could be on very shaky ground.
Click to expand...

"I feel" is another way of saying "In my opinion." If that was not clear, I apologize. I gave my reasoning based upon the fact that his presuppositions for interpreting the text were not stated in Scripture, and rather than simply "pronounce his error," I softened it to more humbly and honestly say that "I feel" and "could be." The fact is that I myself could be mistaken here, and by using that kind of language, I am acknowledging that.


> and I wonder how you would 1) get anything out of sitting under the ministration of Christ by a Reformed preacher, preaching the whole counsel of God, preaching the very Scripture that all spake of Christ (by His own testimony); and 2) preach this passage yourself? And if you can't preach it, what makes you think you are a competent judge of the labors of one of Christ's servants?


You have presumed much about me here which is highly erroneous.


> Has it occurred to you that your inability to see, for example, the "scouring" of the earth, and its essential renovation, and starting-over with a new beginning, a new family--indeed a new "father of the race" (what would you call such an "Adam-redux"?)


Indeed, I acknowledged the interesting parallels, but as I think them through, I also note significant differences which our brother did not overtly acknowledge. For example: 

Adam's eating was strictly forbidden, and the first bite was sin; Noah's drinking wine was NOT forbidden at all, and his first drink was not sin; He was not sinning until he was drunk. 
Adam first covered himself but Noah was covered by his sons. 
Noah's curse was uttered by a humiliated and angry father. The curse in Gen. 3 was uttered by a holy and just God.

Do these differences have no significance at all? Are they so trumped by the parallels that they can be ignored? I don't believe so, but I'm willing to be convinced if someone can demonstrate otherwise.


> --maybe this indicates you should be prepared to learn something? That perhaps you have been inexpertly fed by preparers of the heavenly bread _less competent_, less well prepared for their divinely appointed task as breakers of that living bread?


You have no idea how "expertly" I have or have not been fed. You are greatly mistaken in your assumptions about me.


> I guess I am more than a little surprised that as your first post anyplace on this board you should have chosen to belittle the labors of a called man of God, someone who has gone through preparation and examination for his position,


I belittled no one. I expressed disagreement with his stated position. Is that not what this forum is about? Or is it to be assumed that since I am new here, I have little or nothing to offer of substance, but a man of our brother's status is to be above question or challenge? If that is the case, then please be honest with me about that and I shall make a quiet exit.


> that frankly, if you have not studied what it takes to become a Presbyterian minister in a Confessional denomination, *you have not a clue*. And then, of course, you have questioned the competence of the session and the congregations that have called him to their service. Imagine, them choosing a man so "slipshod" in his preparation...


I have questioned no one's competence. I have questioned a stated interpretation. 
No man, even myself, is so trained as to be beyond the ability to make mistakes or reach incorrect conclusions. We are here to sharpen each other. If I have indeed misrepresented the truth, then please give testimony to my error.


> Personally, I found your *dogmatic agnosticism* on this text far more objectionable than the several _erroneous_ interpretations (in my opinion) that were argued for.


I argued for few interpretations. They were not in error at all. I argued _against_ detailed interpretations (not just the one, but all of them!) on the basis that the Scriptures are not clear enough to be dogmatic about any one interpretation. (And I believe that I was respectful towards all other posters when I did so.) Finally, I professed that I was content with that reality. Where have I been in error Scripturally?

I.D.


----------



## jwithnell

I have to facilitate a Bible study today that largely focuses on this passage -- what timing for me to see this post! Anyway, the notes in the Spirit of the Reformation study Bible also suggests a homosexual tie. Without further confirmation in the text, I have trouble with this interpretation. Several scholars point to the "saw" in verse 9:22 as having the original meaning of "look searchingly." This seems more a matter of humiliating the head-of-household and shredding the fifth commandment, especially when Ham went out to tell his brothers.

Gotta add a personal note: V, you know me as Lou!


----------



## R Harris

On a somewhat related note but also not somewhat related note:

Do you believe that Ham was regenerate or not? Some do, some don't. Steve Schlissel believes Ham was NOT regenerate.

The outcome of this matter has some covenantal implications.


----------



## A5pointer

A5pointer said:


> Are we imposing our sensibility on the text? The Leviticus passage should be enough for us. We all accept scripture interprets scripture. It should be as shocking to us that a people is cursed for the sin of looking on a drunk father naked. It just does not make sense. Yes it says Noah fell asleep naked but this is no less a part of the euphemism as is the act and the description of the act and of the brothers not participating in the same act. We as moderns are well aware of euphemisms used to describe sexual acts. It may well be that biblical writers used them as we would, to be less vulgar and or to shield the graphic description from the youth. The later makes sense as the books of Moses would have been read to the masses. I understand the suggested interpretations but think they are based(not intentionally) on predetermined thoughts rather than bare acknowledgement of the text.



Yikes the thread is back I am sticking with this interpretation. I agree that the meaning of the text is not clear *to us*. But I believe it is wrong to suggest as has been, that God has intended this textto be unclear and vaugue. The ancients surely understood what happened. Our task is to discover what that was.


----------



## ImagoDei

A5pointer said:


> Yikes the thread is back I am sticking with this interpretation. I agree that the meaning of the text is not clear *to us*. But I believe it is wrong to suggest as has been, that God has intended this text to be unclear and vague. The ancients surely understood what happened. Our task is to discover what that was.


If you were referring to what I wrote about the passage, I would not say that God intended to be unclear or vague, but rather that God told us enough to clearly communicate what He intended to communicate and did not include details that did not support His purpose for the passage. 

I do agree, however, that it is quite likely that the people to whom Moses related this story understood it much more clearly than we do. But we in our culture are so far removed from that culture that we probably have no idea how little we understand of it. We have tremendous difficulty in comprehending other cultures from other lands that are extant TODAY, let alone cultures from another land AND 4000 years before us. Adequately understanding that culture may simply be beyond any possibility.

Having said that, I do still believe that through some careful word study, we can discern a little more insight than we find by simply reading the passage in English.

Perhaps another day I'll post what I have found in my own study of this passage.

I.D.


----------



## Witsius

All: If you are willing to let an unlearned one comment...
Though hesitant, I find myself informed - due to the recurrent theme of sin/nakedness in scripture -by an allegorical/metaphorical/spiritual interpretation: Ham (or, Canaan) discovered his father's (or, grandfather's) sin nature - in a specific/illustrative example - and broadcast (re: 5th Word no-no) the fact, while his brethren, used 'love' to cover the (multitude) of Noah's sin. That wine may have been used as an agent (a la Hab.2:15) by Ham may be (informed?)conjecture. But, I suppose this sounds all to much like Origen.
So...
If you have e-Sword, you can get the Gill (and Henry, and JFB, and K&D, etc.) module and settle for:

"...and Noah might be informed how his little son, or rather grandson Canaan, had been in his tent, and seeing him in the posture he was, went very merrily, and told his father Ham of it, who made a jest of it also; and this seems the more reasonable, since Canaan was immediately cursed by Noah, as in the following verse; 

"Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,.... Which, had it been through surprise, and at an unawares, would not have been thought criminal; but be went into his father's tent, where he ought not to have entered; he looked with pleasure and delight on his father's nakedness: Ham is represented by many writers as a very wicked, immodest, and profligate creature: Berosus (i) makes him a magician, and to be the same with Zoroast or Zoroastres, and speaks of him as the public corrupter of mankind; and says that he taught men to live as before the flood, to lie with mothers, sisters, daughters, males and brutes, and creatures of all sorts; and that he actually did so himself, and therefore was cast out by his father Janus, or Noah, and got the name of "Chem", the infamous and immodest: 

"and told his two brethren without; he went out of the tent after he had pleased himself with the sight; see Hab_2:15 and in a wanton, ludicrous, and scoffing manner, related what he had seen: some of the Jewish Rabbins (k), as Jarchi relates, say that Canaan first saw it, and told his father of it; and some say (l), that he or Ham committed an unnatural crime with him; and others (m), that he castrated him; and hence, it is supposed, came the stories of Jupiter castrating his father Saturn, and Chronus his father Uranus: and Berosus (n) says, that Ham taking hold of his father's genitals, and muttering some words, by a magic charm rendered him impotent: and some (o) will have it that he committed incest with his father's wife; but these things are said without foundation: what Noah's younger son did unto him, besides looking on him, we are not told, yet it was such as brought a curse on Canaan; and one would think it would be more than bare sight, nay, it is expressly said there was something done, but what is not said, Gen_9:24. 

(i) Antiqu. l. 3. fol. 25. 1. (k) In Bereshit Rabba, sect. 36. fol. 32. 1. (l) Some in Jarchi. (m) Pirke Eliezer, c. 23. Some Rabbins in Ben Gersom & Jarchi in loc. (n) Antiqu. l. 3. fol. 25. 1. (o) Vander Hart, apud Bayle Dict. vol. 10. Art. "Ham", p. 588."

For what it's worth,


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I.D. (or A.G.)

First, your signature needs to be board-compliant. Unless the owners have given permission, you need to identify yourself openly. And if your church's name is flipped around, please straighten it.



ImagoDei said:


> In my understanding, exegesis is about determining as objectively as possible what a text MUST mean.


We are having difficulty communicating right out the door. In order to have a profitable conversation, we have to agree on definitions of terms.*Exegesis:* The interpretation of a text, often with reference to the original language and variant readings (i.e. _critical_ exegesis), grammar (grammatical exegesis), type of literature (literary exegesis), historical setting (historical exegesis), and authorial intent.​Basically, using the "purpose statement" found in your quote above, you have limited *exegesis* to purely textual questions. This may not have been your intent, but you have virtually abolished any use of the discipline of exegesis. How so? You have limited it to a descriptive task of defining an undisputed section of text, and labeling its propositions (if any). 

If there be:

1) any question of variant readings, you now cannot say "the text "MUST" mean such-and-such, ergo, exegesis is impossible.

2) Moving on to grammar: linguists can argue about defining the particular constructions of almost any given text. Thus apart from a few general conventions regarding word-placement or cases, exegesis has been rendered impossible in this department as well (on your purpose statement).

3) Determining authorial intent is the most difficult of all, and the most open to rebuttal. Generally in our circles, we speak of a hermeneutical circle, where we employ grammatical principles, and an analogy of faith--or the consistency of doctrinal expression, given the one mind of God, expressed through various authors, situations, nationalities, languages, etc. But all harmonized, because all from One God. However, we still cannot agree, and our presuppositions make one of us dispensational, another covenantal; one a credo-baptist, another a paedo-baptist; if/where biblical-theology fits in, etc. So, once again, exegesis has been rendered "impossible" on the basis of your "purpose statement," that it "MUST" say something we all agree on.

For this reason I can quote you saying this:


> I do not believe that any other conclusions based upon this story are exegetically defensible.


Apparently, unless we agree on a point, it isn't exegesis. Because the purpose as you defined it is that the text "MUST" say something. I hope it is clear that this is a philosophical position. It implies a kind of foundationalist approach that assumes an essential rightness or uniformity of pre-understanding, which is (typically) whatever "my" position happens to be, or whatever "I" was taught in school.

Here's the classic statement, from some old comedy show:"My net catches fish, and if it ain't in my net, it ain't fish."​Similarly, "I do exegesis; and we agree (or I can be persuaded) that this means that, then that's exegesis; but if I'm not persuaded, then we disagree, and that's not exegesis."

This is why we need a *definition* of exegesis that states its meaning in propositional form. And then we need exegetical *methods* and *tools* that help us in doing the task. Then, even if we disagree on our conclusions, we don't end up saying things like: "I'm doing exegesis; you're not," provided there was some attempts by the other side to actually argue from what is actually there.

YOUR statement is "NO other conclusions are exegetically defensible." That IS the logical re-statement of your position. If you need me to, I can get you a reference in a logic textbook. Doesn't matter if you preface it with "I believe" (which is a rhetorical "softening" device; I know, because I use it frequently). You made a categorical statement. And you offered not a single rebuttal for any of the contrary conclusions. You asserted that there was not one exegetically defensible conclusion beyond a couple of propositional statements. Neither of which could even be used together to form a syllogistic (deductively certain) argument.

What I found astonishing was that you would offer that level of critical assessment, without the slightest argumentation as to the specific deficiencies of any of the conclusions you disagreed with.

*That alone would probably not have moved me to write a response.* Those comments could have stood opposite the several reasoned positions, and anyone reading the thread could have seen for themselves who was being serious and who wasn't.

But you took aim at one man's sermon. Believe it or not, most decent ministers do not take a grammar into the pulpit. They don't use PowerPoint and they don't draw on transparencies for an overhead. They don't crush their audience with abstruse foreign words. They study study study, determine as best they can what the text mean, using all the available materials they can get together. And then they get up and Preach. They speak with confidence, and authority. If they don't know something, aren't Sure they know something, then they usually don't go there. They are speaking for God. They don't get up and offer a bunch of "options" to the assembly. They say what they are convicted of. They may be wrong sometimes. But they better believe what they are saying, or they don't belong in the pulpit.

So, just because Rev.K didn't turn in his assignment to you _showing his work,_ doesn't mean you have any business offering an insubstantial warning to him regarding the "shakiness" of his foundations. You have no idea what work he put into that presentation. So, not knowing, you are hardly in a position to critique the depth of his pilings. You might as well opine to the builders of the Empire State building that you think their foundations could be a bit shaky.

I disagreed with a number of the offerings in this thread. But in NO case did I question even a *neophyte's* exegetical efforts. I offered counter propositions, reasons for holding them, and in one case several counter arguments against a certain reading. I think you would be well served to imitate that kind of response in the future.



ImagoDei said:


> [For the record, my opinion is not unsubstantiated, it is substantiated by the very fact that his claim that Noah is a "second Adam" and that somehow he is "officially" reenacting the fall is simply not stated in the Bible. All anyone need do to refute my claim is to demonstrate where the Scriptures explicitly support his claim.]


Well, this is just the "word-concept" fallacy. The most common rebuttal to it is to note that the language "Trinity" is also not in the Bible. However, this latter doctrine is orthodox Christianity, and we all confess it as biblical and true. So, once again, the question comes back to: did he make a biblical, reasonable, and helpful case for his conclusion that Noah is a "new start" for the human race.

And, FYI, the Bible never calls Christ "the second Adam." You have conflated two separate references: to the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), and the second man (1 Cor 15:47). So, if you can make an "exegetical connection" between these two verses, why can't I do the same, say between two incidents in the Genesis prologue (chs 1-11)?



ImagoDei said:


> I know nothing of the man you accused me of so severely disrespecting. I assure that it was not a personal attack. I will remind you that you also know nothing of me, yet you felt free to speak very disrespectfully towards me. How have you acted more nobly than I?


I certainly have been direct; and told you I thought you were out of line. I "exegeted" your words on the screen. I read them for what they said. I quoted you when I responded to them. If you would respond to your own minister the way you responded to Rev. K, then I wouldn't have any reason to believe, _outside what I gathered of you from your initial post_, that you have an especially teachable spirit, at least in this medium.

Your responses in the subsequent posts lead me to hope something better than my first impression. No one wants to stifle your contributions, but you need to avoid unnecessary offense. And to avoid misunderstanding, you will want to use the lingo, the common definitional language, before implementing your critique. Or define your terms.

Regarding my alledged "disrespect" of you:
Is my statement "if you have not studied... you don't have a clue" prima facie inaccurate? Or is it inaccurate, if it were applied to you apart from the conditional clause at the beginning? If you still think you have been unfairly addressed by me here, let me know.

As far as I'm concerned, my terminology directed toward your position: "dogmatic agnosticism," was descriptively accurate for your proclaimed position throughout the entirety of your first post. "We don't know/We don't know/We don't know/We don't know/I don't know/I don't believe/I don't agree/We cannot conclude/God did not tell-not declare-not offer-not consider". For the two limited-value propositions you consented to, they were clearly offered as minor concessions to your basic point. I'm sorry you feel this was pejorative. If I was offering your take as my own position, I think I might have called _myself_ a "dogmatic agnostic."


I realize you offered a more detailed point-for-point response in your third post. If you think I have not covered something you want addressed...

And I hope our future exchanges on the board are more cordial, and less confrontational.


----------



## holyfool33

the Ham had sexual contact with his father theory is popular with some but it just seems really out there for me. The better way of looking at it is Noah passed out durnk and Ham to humilate his Father uncoverd his nakdeness to shame him for what reason we dont know.


----------

