31/03/19 Genesis 9:18-29 “Noah’s drinking settles the dust somewhat!”

 

Genesis 9:18And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.

 

This appears to merely restate facts already known: Noah had 3 sons who left the ark at the end of the flood. And yet, while Japheth and Shem had sons, only Ham is noted here as having a son, who is named as Canaan (“lowland”). This is clearly setting the scene for the offense against Noah later on, and Noah’s subsequent cursing of Canaan (and Ham, either directly or indirectly, being the father of Canaan). Canaan’s name means either “lowland”, or low as opposed to high or lofty. This could refer to low coastal lands but is more likely to refer to Canaan’s lowly position in the family as a result of the cursing.

 

Genesis 9:19These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

 

All mankind as we know it today has descended from these 3 sons of Noah. Even in Noah’s day they must have multiplied well and spread out across the known world of their day (which would have been mostly in the Tigris-Euphrates area of the middle east. It wouldn’t be until after the building of the tower of Babel that the population of this area would then genuinely spread across the whole world.

 

Genesis 9:20And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

 

husbandman – formed from iysh (man) and adamah (land, in particular, tilled land)

And Noah was a man who tilled the land, prepared the ground and planted a vineyard.

 

Genesis 9:21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

 

After planting his vineyard and tending the grapes, he reaps his crop and makes grape-juice drink which then becomes fermented. Of course, alcohol is a natural consequence here. To produce alcohol you need sugars, water and yeast and some warmth to cause the yeast to grow (called rising when used in bread mixtures). Grape juice has fructose (fruit sugar), water (its juice) and yeast (which is usually found on the skin of the grape). Therefore, while freshly-squeezed grape juice is not alcoholic, just leave it in a warm position for some time and bubbles will start to form in the liquid; the fermentation is beginning. So in order for fresh grape juice to not go alcoholic, you need to remove one of the requirements for fermentation; you keep it cold (refrigerate it), or wash the fruit thoroughly before juicing it (this reduces the yeast content) or not leave it for too long before drinking it. If you juice grapes they will naturally ferment unless you do something to prevent this.

 

Did Noah realise that fermentation would occur, or was it something that happened to him unawares? Possibly Noah (if naïve) may not have realised the full effect of fermentation of grape juice, but the text does allow the possibility of Noah knowing enough to try it out this time. After all, it’s unlikely that he wouldn’t have ever seen this sort of thing before the flood. Noah was, however, perfect in his generation (Genesis 6:9), so is not portrayed as someone who would knowingly commit anything shameful. That is, he was above reproach.

 

was uncovered – made naked (to his shame); revealed himself (possibly through personal guilt)

Clearly, though, Noah was somewhat indiscreet in his behaviour because of his intoxication. Even the best of men can fall.

 

Genesis 9:22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

 

Once again we are told that Ham is the father of Canaan without any reason given for this remark. We are left to assume that probably Canaan had something to do with some offense against Noah, yet are not told what it might be. Was it as simple as Canaan seeing Noah naked and gossiping of it to the others? Or to his father, Ham? Or was it really Ham who committed this offense? (Then why make it clear that Canaan was his son?) It is suggested that Canaan did more than just notice Noah’s nakedness, maybe spending much time staring at him, or even, as some suggest, he interfered with Noah sexually. (Some tradition supports this.)

Some even say that Canaan (or Ham or both of them) actually castrated Noah or by some magic charm rendered Noah impotent, and others suggest that he interfered with Noah’s wife (although this is not likely given that she is not mentioned in this episode). But this is all conjecture, for the real issue is that an offense was committed.

 

However, whatever the offense, it was most likely committed by Canaan, son of Ham, either with or without Ham. That Ham was involved somewhere is suggested by the curse being laid upon Ham as a result of what Canaan has probably done.

Ham certainly knew about it, having observed Noah’s nakedness, before informing Shem and Japheth outside Noah’s tent.

 

When we research Ham’s descendants, especially those of Canaan, we see that much of the opposition to God’s people comes from Ham’s line of the family – Egypt (Mizraim), Nimrod, Assyria, Nineveh, Babylon, Philistines, Canaan, Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, Gomorrah, the Jebusites (of original Jerusalem). As noted a while ago, satan has tried to destroy the curse pronounced against him regarding the descendant of woman who would crush his head, that is, Christ. So much of real history is taken up with the battle by satan to have this curse revoked through the destruction of the genealogical line through which Christ would come. Here that line is through Shem, so it is logical to suppose that satan would try to control another line (Ham’s line) to oppose and hopefully destroy Shem’s line somewhere. This conflict occurs many times in the Old Testament, and many of Ham’s descendants are involved.

 

Genesis 9:23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

 

Whatever offense Canaan (and Ham) have committed against Noah, the Bible does make it clear that there was a proper way to do things, and that was what Shem and Japheth did. Why is Shem mentioned first when Japheth is clearly the elder? Possibly because Shem was the one who made the decision to do the right thing about Noah’s nakedness. This is possibly born out by Japheth later being a dweller in the tents of Shem, and not the other way around.

They walked backwards each side of Noah dragging a large garment (probably something like a sleeping robe) over him, to cover his nakedness without them seeing it. The garment was held up to their shoulders.

 

Genesis 9:24And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

 

knewyada – that word that calvinists like MacArthur love to demonstrate as equating somehow with God’s foreknowledge in the New Testament. MacArthur says When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," (yada in the Old Testament) in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. (“Considering election, not politics”) This is that same word yada; it merely means what it says: to know; to have knowledge of; to be known. In neither the Old Testament (nor the New Testament equivalent) does it mean any more than knowledge of some kind, including sexual.

 

yadato know; perceive; find out; discern; distinguish; recognise; acknowledge; consider; have knowledge; be wise.

The men of Sodom wanted to yada the angels in Lot’s house.

Genesis 19:4-54But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know (yada) them.

The men of Benjamin wanted to yada the visitor with his concubine.

Judges 19:22, 2522[Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know (yada) him.

25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew (yada) her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

 

yada cannot mean foreknowledge (a knowledge beforehand). That word is prognosis which is still used today by doctors in the same way as Hippocrates used it around 400BC.

The equivalent New Testament word for the Old Testament yada is ginoskoto learn to know; come to know; get a knowledge of; perceive feel; understand; become acquainted with; Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse.

ginosko is used as such in Matthew 1:25And knew (ginosko) her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

“foreknowledge” is the Greek word prognosis (noun as in 1 Peter 1:2) or proginosko in its verb form (Eg “foreknew” in Romans 8:29).

 

And after a while Noah sobered up enough from his drunkenness to realise what his younger son had done to him. Was this actually his younger son? Probably yes, because even if Canaan had committed a serious offense to Noah, it is certain that Ham at least knew about it at some stage and should have done something to prevent it, or at least stop it. But it probably really refers to Canaan who was the progeny of the younger son and so it is quite acceptable to speak of Canaan as the younger son. In similar fashion, the Jews declared Abraham to be their father when he was a great many generations earlier than that.

 

Likewise note in the following where the “son” is really the “grandson”.

Genesis 29:5And he said unto them, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? And they said, We know [him].

Laban is the brother of Rebekah (Genesis 24:29) who is the daughter of Bethuel who is son of Nahor and Milcah (Genesis 24:15). Similar relationship language is used in 2 Samuel 19:24 and 1 Chronicles 1:17.

Noah knew what had been done but we are not told what it was; that is, it is likely that whatever was done was not to be mentioned here. This strongly suggests something “unmentionable” in this biblical record.

 

Genesis 9:25And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

a servant of servants – the lowest level of servanthood, in reality a slave of slaves.

That is, Canaan (and his descendants, clearly) shall be a lowly slave to Shem and Japheth and their descendants. This was sometimes used to somehow justify slavery of Africans (allegedly descendants of Ham) to British people (allegedly descendants of Japheth), but there’s a difference between God causing events to happen and man forcing the issue. Just because God prophesied that Babylon should enslave the Jews does not mean that the Babylonians were above reproach!

 

Genesis 9:26-2726And he said, Blessed [be] the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

 

and Canaan shall be his servant – That is, Canaan shall be the servant of both Shem and Japheth. It is said that “his” is a collective noun, a singular form used to denote more than one, but the meaning is clear without that: that Canaan (and his descendants) will be the lowest of servants to both his brothers (and their descendants). Thus “and Canaan shall be their servant” or “be servant unto them”.

 

Shem’s God will be blessed (the idea is to kneel before him) but this may also include a reference to the greatest of his descendants, Christ the Messiah. It is likely that in praising the God of Shem, Shem himself is to be blessed, for it would be inconsistent to curse Canaan and enlarge Japheth without also blessing Shem. It would also specifically refer to God being their God and Israel being His people.

 

enlarge – to make spacious, make open. In this context it could refer to the rule or authority of Japheth and his descendants, or to the increase of their property and possessions, possibly throughout the world.

 

Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem is unlikely to refer to Japheth taking over Shem’s dwelling places, but rather that they (and their descendants) would generally dwell together in peace, or that Japheth’s descendants would dwell with and partake of the blessings of Shem’s descendants. The latter may be consistent with the Gentiles taking over as God’s people (via the Church) with that being handed back to Israel when the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled (Romans 11:25; see Romans 11 in general for the full story here).

 

Genesis 9:2828And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

 

Noah was the last person to live to such ages as only seen in pre-flood times. Shem outlived Noah but only by 148 years, and it may be assumed that both Japheth and Ham could have lived similar ages, but certainly not anywhere near Noah’s age. It is said by some that after the flood the canopy of heaven was altered such that the sun’s damaging UV rays were more intense and direct, less diffused by the canopy of water that used to exist in the upper atmosphere. But this is only conjecture; it doesn’t change the basic fact that from now on, mankind will live far shorter lives post-flood than pre-flood ages.

Some say the earth tilted on its axis during the flood and therefore the seasons are more pronounced. It’s irrelevant, however, to our discussion here.

 

Abraham was 58 years old when Noah died, so it is possible that some of what Abraham knew about the one true God came from Noah. Society then had a largely oral tradition; therefore information must have been passed on from one to another. If that information were passed from Noah through a number of people before reaching Abraham, then it is possible for errors to creep in, but not likely if the transferring of that information were directly from one to the other.

 

On another note, in recent days our church website has been attacked fairly consistently for a number of days now. Every attacking IP that’s checked was listed as abusive, with just about all being serious repeat offenders. This means that our website has attracted a significant amount of attention from those who think it’s OK to be violently aggressive against anyone that offends you in any way. Such people do not consider it a problem to hit out at their opponents, in much the same way that we have road rage and house invasions etc. They will generally only attack in what they feel are superior numbers and greater firepower than their opposition; that is, they do not believe in fighting fairly but consider that the most important requirement is greater numbers and more weaponry (fire power). Such people never attack if they think they themselves might get hurt; they are chickens in every sense of the word. They also run and hide before they can be discovered; this demonstrates their fear of retaliation. Like cowards they fight from cover because they fear the consequences if they become known to their opposition.

 

There’s nothing of any real value on our website, unless you consider biblical teaching to be a saleable commodity. But they still consider it necessary to hit out. So why? Like road rage low-life, they hit out because they have been personally offended somehow. No-one has actually done anything to them except perhaps hurt their feelings, yet this can be a huge issue for those with low self-esteem. And like bullies who hit out to boost their own self-esteem, these people find strength in their ability to hurt others. The more that others get hurt, the more these people feel “empowered” by their bullying. Such people are generally incapable of standing their ground intellectually, so in their incompetence they hit out physically. As the saying goes, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

 

But what people would feel so threatened by our website, yet feel so incapable of debating the issue up front and out in the open? You only have to look at who is challenged by our website statements, for the only logical answer here is that those attacking the website are people who (a) feel threatened by our information and (b) feel powerless to hit back openly. (Or else these people are irrational, incapable of rational thinking, people that we would term “insane”; many road rage attacks are seemingly by such people!)

 

Now who could these people be, I wonder? Who have we opposed that might have found it too difficult to defend their views rationally? Because whoever has been attacking our website will be associated in some way with such people. Could it, perhaps, be calvinists who don’t approve of what we say about their beloved beliefs? But calvinists are such nice, easy to get along with people, aren’t they? So biblical, too, and, of course, the epitome of graciousness, for their God is the God of grace, isn’t he? Calvinists are so loving, so caring, so kind, that they would feel ashamed to be seen as trouble-makers, wouldn’t they?

 

Within the SBC of USA, the battle lines are being drawn over calvinism’s aggression.

However, there is now a "New Calvinism" movement, "committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the 'Doctrines of Grace' ('TULIP'), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God's plan of salvation."

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/whats-wrong-with-tulip-southern-baptists-resist-aggressive-advance-of-new-calvinism/102839.htm

 

Even SBC calvinists see the new calvinist aggression as excessive.

Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.

I, yes even as a Calvinist, firmly stand with these men in opposing this “New Calvinism”. …. I am especially opposed to those that “are characterized by an aggressive insistence on the ‘Doctrines of Grace’ (TULIP).  I’m opposed to that because aggressive insistence goes against “teaching with gentleness and respect”.  Furthermore, I do not support an aggressive insistence that others be Calvinists because it denies the very sovereignty and power of God that it claims to uphold. (https://sbcvoices.com/why-im-opposed-to-new-calvinism/)

 

Another comment in a forum: Calvinists I have met …. seem to be very pushy, arrogant and aggressive about what they believe and can't seem to let it go until people believe them. They try really hard to convince people. It was worse in bible college, but that's another story. They just don't come off as people at ease or at peace with God, like something is bugging them or something like that. I just don't understand why anyone would want to believe in something that causes you to have to defend that point of view so aggressively.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/five-misconceptions-about-calvinism.8018475/page-2

And from a calvinist soon after on that forum: As a Calvinist, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, there are many Calvinists that do exactly what you are describing.

 

Or from The Gospel Coalition (new calvinist)

Let’s be honest and say a lot of Calvinists won’t admit this difficulty, and it comes out in the condescending, aggressive, abrasive, and unhelpful way they approach theological engagement with people who disagree. You know the kind. You can find them in Bible studies, blog comment sections, insular Reformed churches that nobody visits; the archetypical newbie who presents masterfully botched iterations of Reformed doctrines, as if they were the most obvious truths of God that only a perversely obstinate fool could miss; the crusty expert who adds in just enough condescension and sneering to belie all his talk of grace.

This was my final reason for being put off from Calvinism: really arrogant, thickheaded, (often young) know-it-all, sneering Calvinists. Who wants to be planted in soil that yields such fruit? In the long run that isn’t the best reason to reject a doctrine, as it’s just another version of the common atheist objection: “But if Christianity were true, then Christians should be great, but all the Christians I know are jerks so it must be false” (see C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity). Still, there’s something to it given Christ’s own declaration that people are known by their fruits.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/sneering-calvinists/

 

It is fairly safe to assume that calvinists (especially of the new calvinist breed) are condescending, abrasive, unhelpful, aggressive, arrogant, thickheaded, know-it-all sneering calvinists. Even they admit this. What happens, then, when they get into a situation where they cannot freely hammer back their answers because they don’t have the freedom to bully others? Do they then try to destroy their opponents merely because they cannot defeat them any other way? Would these people crash a website simply because it was the only way to shut it up? Clearly they would!

To Genesis page

 

To Sermons & Messages page

 

To Calvinist Heresies page

 

To Posts / Blog / News page

 

List of all my posts on this site

 

Hoppers Crossing Christian Church homepage