Never gave this a thought until now

[Burke Devlin]

Someone here recently asked whether all eight on the ark, or everyone in Christ’s lineage (Matt. 1, Luke 3) was elect. I say not necessarily, but it’s not something I’m willing to go to the stake for. Interested in feedback on this one.

 

[EvanF]

The eight were certainly all meant to be typical of the elect, and were literally elected for salvation from the death of the world. Everyone in Christ's lineage is a stretch, especially considering his descent from David through several wicked kings.

 

[Burke Devlin]

Interesting. They may have been “typical” of the elect, but not necessarily elect. I take the ark to be a “type” of the visible church, not the invisible church. Some are in the covenant but not of the covenant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Interesting. They may have been “typical” of the elect, but not necessarily elect. I take the ark to be a “type” of the visible church, not the invisible church. Some are in the covenant but not of the covenant.

My position is that they were all eight elect, all saved (1Pet.3:20). The ark, like the temple, points to Christ. It isn't the visible church that takes the abuse of the storm and deluge, protecting them within it; but Christ is drowned in the water and rises, bringing all who are "in him" to safety.

 

[Northern Crofter]

My position is that they were all eight elect, all saved (1Pet.3:20). The ark, like the temple, points to Christ. It isn't the visible church that takes the abuse of the storm and deluge, protecting them within it; but Christ is drowned in the water and rises, bringing all who are "in him" to safety.

Genesis 9.2925 seems to indicate that Canaan along with his line were cursed and so not among the elect (some believe that Noah's curse on Canaan is emphasizing that Ham's sin by showing it would affect not just him but his descendants, with Canaan singled out because he was the youngest of Ham's sons, and Noah’s curse could be seen as targeting the descendants of the one who "sinned" even while Ham himself wasn't directly cursed in the text). If this is the case, then it fits with the idea that the 8, who were the visible Church at time, were not all part of the Church invisible. Ham seems to be a type of Judas, a tare in the wheat, or one of whom John (1 John 2:19) and Paul speak of (Titus 1:16).

 

[Burke Devlin]

I would say that if one of Christ’s own disciples is certainly reprobate, anything is possible regarding the other 7 aboard the ark.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Genesis 9.29 seems to indicate that Canaan along with his line were cursed and so not among the elect (some believe that Noah's curse on Canaan is emphasizing that Ham's sin by showing it would affect not just him but his descendants, with Canaan singled out because he was the youngest of Ham's sons, and Noah’s curse could be seen as targeting the descendants of the one who "sinned" even while Ham himself wasn't directly cursed in the text). If this is the case, then it fits with the idea that the 8, who were the visible Church at time, were not all part of the Church invisible. Ham seems to be a type of Judas, a tare in the wheat, or one of whom John (1 John 2:19) and Paul speak of (Titus 1:16).

All of this is hard to decipher, starting with the initial text supplied.

Do you mean Gen.9:25, "Cursed be Canaan..."? Anyway, Canaan wasn't on the ark, not one of the eight counted.
Did you mean to write, "Ham along with his line were cursed and so not among the elect"? Because someone's genealogical line follows them.
Do you think Ham was cursed? Why isn't he named? Why is the word sinned put in quotation marks?
What was Ham's sin? Where is it in the text?

Obviously, a hypothetical (...if this is the case...) can lead one to a rational conclusion. But the premises must be sound, and the conclusion should be necessary (modus ponens).

The passage Gen.9:20-25 is subject to quite a bit of speculative interpretation. Much leans on supposition that isn't actually present in the text, or context. And a text like 1Pet.3:20, which is quite plain and unambiguous, suffers on account.

Gen.9:18 gives a brief, truncated genealogy of Noah: his three sons, and one grandson, Canaan, are named. In the Bible, a man's descendants are often labeled as his sons. Jesus, son of David, is perhaps the most obvious example. In terms of Gen.9, the youngest son of Noah who has been named in the text so far is without a doubt Canaan.

Canaan is cursed. The text tells us that the curse results from whatever it is Noah's youngest son did to him. The Hebrew comparative adjective, younger, is capable also of the superlative sense. In the lists of the three brother's names, Ham is never last. He is always the middle name. Gen.10:21 uses another comparative adjective, elder, to refer to Shem over Japheth (whose was the first genealogy listed). The logical reason for the note is that Shem's genealogy is reserved to the last of the three brothers, in spite of the fact he was the eldest--because the narrative will continue forward with his story, leaving the other sons and nations aside. The note attests that the brothers' birth order, for the sake of narrative progress, is reversed (Japheth, Ham, Shem) just for these Gen.10 genealogies.

Ham is not the youngest son: not the youngest person named, not the youngest son of Noah. Ham's action in v22 may or may not be blameworthy; the text is silent and open to interpretation. His brothers' action in v23 appears to be both cautious, and later commended in vv26-27, although this too is a matter of connecting the dots. Canaan, however, is clearly guilty of something according to Noah; and he is cursed for it. These words foreshadow the Canaanite evil (far in the future) for which God will destroy them out of the land they once claimed, as he gives it to the descendants of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob.

On very scant evidence and dubious interpretation thereof, Ham is made a scapegoat. He is turned into a Judas. His association with salvation, to the point of explicit reference, is treated as unclear. He is regarded as having been "indirectly" cursed of his father. Worst of all, a "curse of Ham" was once used as religious justification for racism. Yet, Canaan was cursed. And that curse was fulfilled as far as it would ever be in biblical terms when Israel conquered their Promised Land.

Several speculations have been put forward as to the sin for which Canaan was cursed. My thoughts have, I think been published here in some other thread. But in fact, the text leaves that fact unstated, only implied. Whatever it was, foisting it on Ham is unsupportable.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Do you mean Gen.9:25, "Cursed be Canaan..."? Anyway, Canaan wasn't on the ark, not one of the eight counted.

Yes, sorry for that typo.

Did you mean to write, "Ham along with his line were cursed and so not among the elect"?

No, Canaan was cursed which why I added: "(some believe that Noah's curse on Canaan is emphasizing that Ham's sin by showing it would affect not just him but his descendants, with Canaan singled out because he was the youngest of Ham's sons, and Noah’s curse could be seen as targeting the descendants of the one who "sinned" even while Ham himself wasn't directly cursed in the text)."

Ham's action in v22 may or may not be blameworthy; the text is silent and open to interpretation.

I don't know of anyone who thinks it wasn't blameworthy - the text seems very clear: Noah sobered, realized "what his younger son had done unto him," and cursed his line. I'd be interested what you wrote on this in the other thread you mentioned if you could provide a link to it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The parenthesis contains a run on sentence that doesn't make sense grammatically. I tried to make the best of it, but preferred to have you spell out such implications that you appear to see in the text itself.

There is no statement in the text that Ham sinned, none. Even here in this thread there is not one effort at explaining his actions or rationalizing for us his exact error. It is simply assumed. We know what happened and what he did (or what happened to him, and what he said). Was there something other that should have happened, or did not? Is there something about the word "told" or about those who were told that implicates--or exonerates--Ham? Should he have said nothing or done nothing? Was there anything he could do or should have done? How do we know? Was there a prevention/obstacle of some kind respecting duty?

These are responsible queries demanding answers, prior to assigning blame. Perhaps till now you don't know someone who at least questions Ham's blame, but I do. It is not in the text. I care for what is in the text and good and necessary conclusions, so we do not go beyond what is written, and that we attend and fasten on small details.

"Youngest" (superlative) is the best translation. A circumlocution here is groundless. Why refer to Ham as "younger/est" anything? It's a meaningless referent in that case. However, in reference to Canaan, it does highlight a vital filial relation to his grandfather. There's a 5th commandment issue involved.

 

[pgwolv]

I'd be interested what you wrote on this in the other thread you mentioned if you could provide a link to it.

Two such threads:

Ham's Sin

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...

puritanboard.com

I think I believe in the maternal-incest view of Ham's sin

It seems weird that Ham would only be cursed for seeing his dad naked. And...correction..it was not even Ham but his son that was cursed (though Ham was also cursed with having his son cursed..any father would feel cursed if his actions caused his son to be cursed, after all)...this curse of his...

puritanboard.com

 

[Northern Crofter]

The parenthesis contains a run on sentence that doesn't make sense grammatically.

Thanks - I fixed that.

There is no statement in the text that Ham sinned, none. Even here in this thread there is not one effort at explaining his actions or rationalizing for us his exact error. It is simply assumed. We know what happened and what he did (or what happened to him, and what he said). Was there something other that should have happened, or did not? Is there something about the word "told" or about those who were told that implicates--or exonerates--Ham? Should he have said nothing or done nothing? Was there anything he could do or should have done? How do we know? Was there a prevention/obstacle of some kind respecting duty?

I would agree with Gill on this: "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." I think, as I suggest below, based on the very specific contrast with his brothers' actions, that it was both what he did ("saw the nakedness of his father") and did not do ("covered the nakedness of their father with their faces backward").

"Youngest" (superlative) is the best translation. A circumlocution here is groundless.

So the translators of the Geneva and KJV translations were engaged in circumlocution? For what purpose? As many lexicons note, the word can mean small, little, insignificant, young, or least. It is not a superlative but a diminutive. The Hebrew word is derived from the root word meaning "to be small" or "to be insignificant." It can be used to describe something that is small in size, quantity, or importance, it can refer to physical size, age, or social status. In the context of age, it can denote either youth in general or the youngest specifically in a family. Ham was younger than Shem, but he wasn't the youngest. Canaan was the youngest of Ham's sons (Gen.10.6), so it is possible this is who Noah is referring to when saying "son" (as is frequently the case in Scripture - a grandson or other male relative being called a "son"), implying that Canaan did something worthy of being cursed that is not in the text. Or it could be that Noah cursed Ham's youngest (who was often the dearest in Biblical narratives) for whatever Ham did - most commentators and interpreters sense something immoral in the sequence of seeing his father's nakedness and telling his brothers, even if there is nothing in the text indicating it was anything other than mere reporting.

There's a 5th commandment issue involved.

Which is what? Note that what are verses 24 and 25 in our translations is one continuous sentence in the Hebrew. This is reflected in the Geneva translation (but not the KJV which makes each verse its own sentence): "Then Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him, and said, "Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."" Canaan doesn't do anything in the narrative, but Ham does, even if his actions (seeing his father's nakedness and reporting it to his brothers) could be interpreted innocently. But it would seem most likely from the context that Noah is angry that Ham did not do as his brothers did (the contrast in v.23 is very specific) - not look and cover him vs. look and leave him uncovered (I am of the opinion that perhaps too much is made of the fact that Canaan "told his two brethren without" - I think this is just moving the narrative along though. I acknowledge many read a sinister mocking or gossiping motive here, but I do not see any indication of this - the language is straightforward and neutral). This looking and leaving I would see as a violation of the 5th Word. Thus he punished Canaan by cursing Ham's posterity to be slaves to his kin. There does, from a human perspective, seem to be a bit of poetic justice in punishing a son for disrespecting his father by cursing the son's son, but this doesn't mean Noah was justified in seemingly cursing Canaan for what his father did or didn't do (as this contradicts passages like Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20). Yet a blessing remains a blessing (Gen.27, Numbers 23.20), and a curse remains a curse (Numbers 22.6, 1 Samuel 3.14), and it helps explain why the Canaanites were later dealt with as they were.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If you appreciate Gill, fine. He's not one I attend often. I see from him no explanation as to why the "roundabout reference" (i.e. cicumlocution) using the word "younger" to refer to... whomever is meant. Moses' odd word choice? What is the point of this term, regardless of how it might be rendered for our clarity?

Gill proposes an illness in the verb "saw," which is one alternate exegetical peg on which to hang a conclusion from the text. In my view, it is too weak given the freight it is called to bear. We see good things, neutral things, terrible things. What sort of thing did Ham see? Was it a shameful sight? Whose fault was it? The text indicates (from Noah) something was done to him on account of the state he left himself in. Certainly, Noah bore some blame in this passage.

Who "did" the something? Why should we read into the verb "saw" (typically a passive term) an overt act by Ham, beyond him going to tell his brothers? Gill asks us to make the leap from what we learn later of a curse on Ham's son, to go back and read into the earlier words, thus to speculate.

But the fool in this passage is Noah. Read a different way from the typical (as seen in this thread, and others), it is Noah who makes a fool of or shames his son, Ham. Is there any doubt of this? Noah's folly is the source of the trouble recorded. Did Ham report to his brothers to cause more trouble, or in hopes of solving it? The solution comes from Shem and Japheth; hence their blessing. There isn't that stark contrast, good vs bad conduct, in my understanding of the situation.

Ham being left out of the blessing is assumed by Gill et al. to mean he is the one cursed, though he is not named, but his son (and Noah's). So much more straightforward to understand that Canaan "did" whatever was done, and was penalized. It is by the curse that Canaan's act is told, and not in the rest of the narrative.

Instead of re-reading the passage, as we enter the pericope we have been given knowledge in the form of names of 4 sons of Noah, including one grandson's name. No backwards reading required. Canaan is a character in the following drama. As Noah curses Canaan, he is the logical actor who has "done" something. And, he is unquestionably the youngest son mentioned in the text so far.

The interpretation I advocate makes much more of Noah's sin than others that make it more of an occasion for the sin committed by alternate subjects. Noah made at least one victim of his act beside himself. Noah's drunkenness didn't just make him a victim of someone else.

Briefly, as to translation, leaving "younger" leaves the reader to make the proper inference. That's a translational choice. I'm denying Moses makes a useless roundabout reference to none other than Ham by using "young." My view, by contrast, sees the reference to "youngest son" as exactly that connection to the 5th commandment that you regard as odd or beyond the text. Gloss it as you will, why does Moses employ the words "young son" to describe the perpetrator?

My view of Canaan's actual sin, while it is unstated, carries along the 5th commandment track. As Noah's son, and youngest son, his duty was to honor his father. It is his failure to do so that I believe is his crime. There are but two ways Noah's folly came to be known outside of perhaps him and his three (or four) sons. Either God revealed it to everyone, or else someone else's made it public who first made the observation, or solved the initial problem using due caution.

The text says when Noah was made aware of what his youngest son had done.... Did God tell him what happened when he woke? Or did one of his sons? Or does this language indicate that word of public scandal seeped back to Noah's ears?

See, I think Canaan made a public mockery of Noah's drunkenness, which is the true opposite of Shem's and Japheth's effort. And so he was cursed. No need to speculate of sexual deviance or anything else. We know about this incident because before Moses wrote, it was publicized, rather than kept to preserve a father's remaining dignity, and further shame heaped on Ham who was made to see his father utterly undignified.