Abstract
This article draws our attention to the paradox in understanding the mission of God [missio Dei] as God of both love and justice within the context of war against nations like the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, and even the Israelites. The misreading of biblical texts like Genesis 9:25 leads to the varied pretexts or driving forces behind the genocide, land grabs, and related matters. This article attempts to answer the following question: What is the motive behind the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9:25? To uncover the message behind Genesis 9:25, this article discusses the three aspects from missional perspectives: firstly, the formation: understanding the basic concepts of nakedness, holiness, and curse before the fall of human beings into sin; secondly, the deformation: understanding the critical reception of the curse of Canaan within the fall of human beings into sin; and thirdly, the transformation: understanding the ultimate missio Dei-led curse of Canaan as a paradox of God’s nature as the God of love and justice.
Contribution: This article adds value by uncovering the missio Dei behind Genesis 9:25, which serves as the basis for critical reflection on, and the reception of, missional guidelines. These guidelines should be received, appreciated, and applied by God’s people, both within and beyond the faith community. The aim is to prevent further misreadings of biblical texts, which continue to serve as pretexts or driving forces behind holy wars, genocide, land dispossession, and related matters.
Keywords: Missio Dei; paradox; Genesis 9:25; God’s love; God’s justice; Canaan’s curse and genocide.
Introduction
Many biblical scholars, ancient and modern, have viewed the motives behind the curse of Canaan not only as a serious, sensitive, contentious, controversial, and debatable issue but also as an enigmatic one (Hepner 2001). To make sense of the narrative, some biblical scholars claimed that the motive behind Canaan’s curse goes beyond the story of Ham gazing (staring) at Noah’s nakedness towards sexual immorality, using either an omission or commission, explicit or implicit, and homo or heterosexual arguments with respective diverse motivations thereof. The question is: what is the motive behind the curse of Canaan? When this issue remains unchecked, it affects our understanding of the God of love and the God of justice with his self-revelation in the Bible, namely who he is, what he says and does in relation to the nature and effects of his ḥērem war orders given to the Israelites to execute. This article used the missional framework. In this framework (perspectives), the triune God is viewed not only as the creator and sustainer of the universe but also as its Redeemer (in Christ) and Sanctifier (by his Spirit). In that regard, this article is set to discuss three aspects: firstly, the formation: understanding the basic concepts of nakedness, holiness, and curse before the fall of human beings into sin; secondly, the deformation: understanding the critical reception of the curse of Canaan within the fall of human beings into sin; and thirdly, the transformation: understanding the ultimate missio Dei-led curse of Canaan as a paradox of God’s nature as the God of love and justice.
Basic concept: Nakedness, holiness, and curse
To understand the concepts of curse and holiness, it is important, firstly, to analyse the concept of nakedness in the Bible. To do so, two illustrations (see Box 1) are used to show the two main differences in the meaning of the concept of nakedness.
| BOX 1: Illustration of the two concepts of nakedness. |
The illustration (see Box 1) of Nakedness 1 as a concept, appears only once in the Bible in Genesis 2:25 – which is the time before the fall of human beings into sin (cf. Eph 4:24; Odhiambo 2007:14). The illustration of Nakedness 2 as a concept (see Box 1), appears after the fall into sin and not only means the absence of holiness, purity (innocence), and power (dignity) but also the presence of shame and a guilty consciousness before God (cf. Gn 3:7; 9:24). This is well demonstrated by Adam and Eve when they covered themselves after their fall into sin. They started to realise their nakedness, which meant their sin, shame, and guilt, and they tried to cover themselves with fig leaves, but it is God who covers them with animal skin (cf. Gn 3:7ff., 21). It is also illustrated by the concept of atonement (in Hebrew כַּפָּרָה), which means unity, and it is derived from the Old English verb, onement, unity, or reconciliation with God and hence in Genesis 3:21, such unity (reconciliation) is attained through the atoning (covering) blood (of an animal). In this context, the covering of Noah’s nakedness will be discussed within Genesis 9:18–19. Atonement is also derived from the Old English word, bledsian, and the German root, bloedsian, which means ‘to consecrate or mark with blood, as blotham means blood in Germany’ (cf. Merriam-Webster 2025).
The concept of nakedness and the curse of Canaan within Genesis 9:18–29
In Genesis 9:18–29, the covering of Noah’s nakedness lies at the centre or the heart of the narrator’s message. The narrator emphasised it by the use of a contrast, namely that Ham invaded Noah’s privacy and saw [האר] – and he failed to cover his father Noah’s nakedness; however, in juxtaposition (as an alternative) to what Ham did, his brothers, Shem and Japheth, did not see [רָאָֽוּ לא] with their own eyes or bear witness to it, but they rather took a cloth or garment to cover Noah inside his tent; and they walked backwards into Noah’s tent with their faces turned away to avoid any chance of ‘seeing’ Noah’s nakedness (Gn 9:22–23a, c, d). In Genesis 9:24, when the narrator continued to say, when Noah regained his consciousness, he knew (the Hebrew וַיֵּדַע means: ‘and he realised, discovered or recognised what Ham did’). It raises questions and debate about what Ham did to his father, Noah, that warranted a curse on Canaan. Is this curse about something more than seeing his father’s nakedness? Diverse theories were and are still advanced. This article is of a view that the meaning of the text is neither allegorical (behind the text) nor eisegesis (outside the text), but rather literally in the text and hence well advocated for by the voyeurism approach (Bergsma & Hahn 2005:25–40; Kugel 1997:86; Muswubi 2024:3ff.; Olthuis 1976:3f; 1987:44ff.; Ross 1980:223–240) behind or outside the text (which allows eisegesis and diverse speculation). The parallel text in Habakkuk 2:15, where a friend gets his friend drunk to הביט [gaze] his nakedness, not only shows the psychological sense of seeing but also the ethical-moral sense of disrespect and mockery (Lm 4:21; Morris 1992:154; Rashkow 1998:90). According to Jesus Christ in Matthew 6:22, the ethical character and functioning on the outside, such as wickedness and malicious actions, are expressed by darkened eyes (πονηρὸς), like a window which expresses the wicked and malicious heart from within one’s heart (Mt 6:22ff.; Jn 11:9ff.; Keener 1999:232; Luz 1989:397).
Connections: Ham’s act of seeing Noah’s nakedness and the curse of Canaan
To understand the connection between Ham’s act of seeing Noah’s nakedness and the curse of Canaan, it is important to understand the biblical prophecy. Prophecy in the Bible has three main perspectives: the past, the present and the future. Noah’s prophetic pronouncement shows three perspectives: firstly, it points backward towards the actions of Ham, seeing Noah’s nakedness as a past reference; secondly, addressing the recipient of the curse, namely the person of Canaan; and thirdly, points towards Canaan’s descendants after him, who were known to the narrator and the first readers alike (Atkinson 1990:170). In other words, the Spirit-led curse of Canaan (present) is traceable from its origin (Canaan’s father, Ham’s act of seeing Noah’s nakedness (past), and it is directed towards Canaan’s descendants after him (future). It is confirmed by reading prophetic pronouncements of blessings as well as curses uttered through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob towards the end of their respective lives that they set a course whose effect is experienced by their descendants that follows after them (Gn 9:25–27; 27:1, 4, 10; 48:21–49:33; Hamilton 1990:321; Sailhamer 2008:134). In the Spirit-led curse of Canaan in Genesis 9:25–27, it is also anticipated that the dwelling (presence) of Yahweh God (הוָֹה אֱלהֵי) will be in the tent of Shem and thereby Abraham and the Israelites are also implied (Sailhamer 2008:134). While the Israelites are Yahweh’s chosen people without any land allocated to them (Retsö 2003:217ff.), the descendants of Ham and Japheth will respectively dwell in the tents of Shem (Gn 9:26a; Cassuto 1965:153ff.), and the descendants of the Canaanites will also dwell in the presence of Yahweh God, but in the tents of Shem as servants of servants (the lowest servant) (Gn 9:26ff.; Avishur 1999:50; Cassuto 1965:155). Yahweh God used the tent of Shem not only as his dwelling presence, but also as a link and the bridge between Noah’s three sons and their descendants (the Shemites, the Hamites – which includes the Canaanites – and the Japhethites, as represented in the Table of Nations – cf. Gn 10; Rm 11:5ff.). In that regard, those who are in the line of the Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites who believe in Yahweh God of Israel, are regarded as the seed of Abraham and are heirs to the redemptive promises that go all the way back to God’s blessing on the line of Shem (cf. Gl 3:29; Jacob 1974:70; Muswubi 2024:3ff.). Hence, from the Noahic and Abrahamic covenant any non-Shemites could become a full-fledged Israelite by affirming the faith to Yahweh God of Abraham (cf. Ex 12:48; Jacob 1974:69, 233).
The unfolding of God’s plan and the occupation of Canaan as prophesied
Table 1 presents the highlights, as outlined in this article, of the unfolding plan of God in relation to the curse of Canaan as prophesied in Genesis 9:25–27. Due to time and space, only one aspect among many will be dealt with, namely God’s dealings with the Canaanites’ sin. As revealed in the Bible, there are at least seven characteristics of Yahweh’s war, which are distinct from other forms of war (cf. Von Rad 1991:41–51). Firstly, it is the war of Yahweh (cf. Jdg 3:27; 6:34ff.; 1 Sm 13:3), by the army (power) of Yahweh (Jdg 5:11ff.; 20:2) who gives his people victory (Jos 2:24; 6:2, 16; 8:1, 18; 10:8, 19; Jdg 3:28; 4:7, 14; 7:9, 15; 18:10; 20:28; 1 Sm 14:12; 17:46; 23:4; 24:5; 26:8; 1 Ki 20:28). Secondly, spiritual preparedness (consecration) before the war, which includes circumcision of the uncircumcised (Jos 5:2–9), abstain from uncleanness and sexual activity (Dt 23:9–14; 2 Sm 11:11); Passover observation (Jos 5:10–12; Holloway 1998:50); appropriate sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9ff.); prayers that seek God’s will (Jos 5:13; 9:14; 1 Sm 23:1–6); and praise and worship to God (Nm 21:2; Jos 3:5; Jdg 11:36; 1 Sm 14:24; 21:5; 2 Sm 1:21; 11:11ff.). Thirdly, the presence of the Ark of the covenant represents God’s presence. Yahweh is the head of the army prior, during, and after the battle (Jos 6). The march to the battle involves a well-arranged religious procession with the marchers participating in prayer, religious songs, and celebration (Nm 2; 2 Chr 20:18–22). The presence of God in the battle using inferior manpower, weaponry, and irrational strategies has a lesson to teach the nation of Israel and other nations that victory comes from God’s hand and not from their strength and that he alone is the sole guarantor and provider of victory (Jos 11:6, 9; Jdg 6–8; 1 Sm 17; Holloway 1998:50ff.). Fourthly, fear of Yahweh is encouraged and fear of enemies is discouraged as Yahweh alone will cause terror into enemy’s hearts so that they lose courage (Ex 14:13; 15:14–16; 23:27–28; Lv 26:36; Dt 2:25; 7:20–23; 11:25; 20:3; Jos 5:1; 8:1; 10:1–2, 8–15, 25; 11:6; 24:7; Jdg 4:15; 7:3, 22; Jos 2:9, 24; 5:1; 7:5; 10:2; 11:20; 24:12; 1 Sm 4:7ff.; 5:11; 7:10; 14:15, 20; 17:11; 23:16–17; 28:5; 30:6; 2 Sm 10:12). Fifthly, Yahweh’s enemies are sacrificed (destroyed) (chērem) like set aside as a separated dedication and devotion in the service, satisfaction and glory of God (Ex 14:4, 14, 18; Dt 1:30; 20:4; Jos 3:11; 10:14, 42; 11:6; 23:10; Jdg 4:14; 20:23–27; 1 Sm 7:9; 13:9–10, 12; 14:8–9, 23; 2 Sm 5:19, 23ff.; Lohfink 1974:180–199). Sixthly, troops encouraged to praise (shout for) and worship the Lord during the war (Jos 6:5; Jdg 7:20; 1 Sm 17:20, 52). After the battle, the army returned with the ark to the sanctuary (Ps 24). Songs were sung in celebration of victory (Ex 15:1–4; Jdg 11:34; Ps 98). Then they practice chērem, which involves offering the conquered people as well as their possessions to Yahweh – including the inflammable objects (Dt 2:34–35; 20:16–18; 1 Sm 15:9, 21; 7:25–26; Gard 2003:116; Longman 2003:163–174). Precious metals should be taken to the sanctuary treasury (Jos 6:21–24; Kaiser et al. 1996:206). In some cases, women (young virgins) and children were spared (Nm 21:2; 31:7–18; Dt 20:13–14; 21:10–14; Jdg 6:17–21; 7:11–19; 21:11–21). Any minor deviation from this practice meant defeat for the nation (Jos 7) while adherence to the practice of chērem meant success for the nation (Jos 8). King Saul lost his kingship in Israel because he did not comply with some of these procedures (1 Sm 13). Seventhly, dismissal and continuing to be in the presence (temple) of the Lord as an army of the Lord in their tents (2 Sm 20:1; 1 Ki 12:16; 22:36).
| TABLE 1: The unfolding of God’s plan in relation to Canaan’s curse. |
Critical reception of the curse of Canaan
To receive and apply the message of Genesis 9:25, it is important to understand and address the curse of Canaan within the context of the Ancient Near East (ANE) Suzerainty Treaty. The nature of this Treaty was discussed by many scholars, including Meek (2020), Zelnick-Abramovitz (2005:35), Harrill (1998:14); Garlan (1988:24ff.) and Wickham (1984:133ff.). This treaty helps readers to not only understand God’s revelation and redemption history but also God’s covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses (Israelites), David, and the New Covenant (Gn 9:8–17; Chalmers 2009:214; Muswubi 2024:2ff.; Smith 1978:47ff.). This article focuses on the Abrahamic Covenant which portrays God as the unilateral initiator in establishing a covenant with Abraham regarding three main aspects: firstly, the recreation of a new nation, Israelites; secondly, the Promised Land, Canaan; and thirdly, the constitution (terms and conditions). However, the article also portrays the total destruction of the idolatrous nation full of immorality in his land, as they disobey his word and laws. Within this broader missional framework of God’s love, care and concern, the seriousness of sin, and immoral action which led to the curse and destruction (Hebrew word ḥērem חֵרֶם) of Canaan can be understood as the fulfilment of the prophecy in Genesis 9:25.
Understanding the curse of Canaan within God’s Mosaic Law
The curse of Canaan should be understood not only within the ANE but also within God’s Mosaic law to Ancient Israel. Noah’s pronouncement of the curse of Canaan (his grandson) for the sin of Ham, justify two main aspects: firstly, the generational consequences of the parents’ sins, to their children, that is, on the one hand, the negative consequences to the disobedient children who do not believe in God and on the other hand, the positive consequences to the obedient children who believe in God (Ex 20:5; Ezk 18); and secondly, the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites as a fulfilment of Noah’s prophetic foreknowledge due to their severe and extreme wickedness (Lv 18), whereby the Canaanites generally became the slaves of the Israelites (Jos 9:23; 1 Ki 9:20ff.). Understanding the justification of Noah’s pronouncement of the curse of Canaan within God’s Mosaic Law is one of the bases for understanding the extermination of the Canaanites for their idolatrous and immoral life (Lv 18).
Understanding the curse and extermination of the Canaanites
To understand the forecast curse of the Canaanites, there are four basic aspects among many:
- It is based on God’s self-revelation in the Bible, including his authorisation to his chosen to join his war to destroy idolatry and immorality (Calvin 1854:97; Merrill 2003:94). In that regard, the misreading of his actions does not emanate from God but from human limitations as creatures (Is 55:8ff.) and Potter’s clay (Rm 9:21) who are unwilling and unable to grasp his truth (Job 42:1ff.; Dn 8:27; 12:8–9; 1 Pt 1:10f.; Gard 2003:55ff.; Longman 2003:58ff).
- It is a corrective measure to eradicate the temptations of the Canaanites’ idolatry and immorality in the Promised Land. Their idolatry and immorality are enticing and violate the Decalogue (10 Commandments) (Ex 34:11–13; Dt 7:2, 20:16ff.).
- It is a protective measure. God used the conquest of Canaan as a pedagogical device to educate his chosen nation (Gn 12:3; 49:10), which involved herself in Canaanite idolatry (Dt 7:4).
- It is God’s prophetic measure to carry forward God’s salvation plan through the nation as a carrier of the messianic seed, to be realised through the Promised Land (Gn 12:3, 7; 13:14–15; 15:18–21; 17:8; 49:10).
Adam and Noah, the progenitors of all the nations, including the Canaanites
Adam and Noah are the progenitors (forefathers) of all the nations (people-groups) who are classified by their clans, languages, territories, and nations (Gn 2:4; 10:1; Gunkel 1997:80; Hieke 2003:94; Viviano 1999:41; Westermann 1984:482ff.). It is from the three sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, that the origin of the ANE nations (including the Akkadians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, Philistines, Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, et cetera) is traced and claimed (Killebrew 2005:93). Genesis 9:18–19 closed the story of the flood and the ark (Gn 6–9). It also introduces the world population (Table of nations), or the tôlĕdôt [genealogy], which traces and claims to originate from Noah’s three sons as the progenitors (Gn 10:1ff.; Sailhamer 1992:128). By the tôlĕdôt, the author of Genesis shows that all nations on earth not only belong to God as the sole sovereign Creator of humanity from Adam and Eve but also that God alone have all the right concerning them: not only to rule over his creation that includes all nations (people groups) in his own terms and conditions, but he also chose to involve his created human beings (in his own Image) to rule with him and to have dominion over creation (Gn 1:26ff.; Ps 8). The question is thus how we should understand Noah’s nakedness within Genesis 1–11. The next sub-section will discuss this question.
The curse of Canaan as part of a glimpse of God’s revelational history about the Canaanites
The question is, why did God, through Noah’s prophecy of Canaan’s curse and through the prophecy to Abraham, order the Israelites to take the Canaanites’ land by exterminating them? The seven ethnic groups of the Canaanites, namely the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites had a profound influence on Israel in terms of idolatry worship and immorality practices (Gn 10:15ff.; 15:19ff.; Ex 3:8; 23:23ff., 28; 33:2; 34:11; Dt 7:1ff.; 20:11; Kauffmann 1972:76). An encounter of the Israelites with the Moabites at Baal-Peor, for example, left an indelible mark on the Israelites (Gn 19:37ff.; Nm 25:1–5; Fonts 1997:4ff.; Rainey 2000:214). The question is, why were the Israelites blessed, and Canaan cursed? The author of Genesis offers a polemic answer to the readers, calling all nations in those times (synchronically) and through the times in future history (diachronically) to respond and to account before God in the light of the set principles: he will bless them if they obey, or curse them if they disobey (Dt 28:15ff.; 4:25–31; 28:1–15). There will be mild curses for minor disobedience, namely to withhold rain (Dt 28:23ff.) and severe curses for severe or prolonged disobedience, namely the foreign invasion or military defeat (Dt 28:25). Failure to respond appropriately in repentance can result in exile, meaning the removal from the land altogether (Dt 28:58–65). In this way, Noah’s prophetic pronouncement of Canaan’s curse implies two things: firstly, Yahweh as an exclusive owner of land, including the land of Canaan, has an exclusive right to give the land to, or take it back from any nation when his terms and conditions are not met; and secondly, it is his exclusive right to choose any means or instrument to take back his land from any nation, including the Israelites. Canaan was not an empty land (Viviano 1999:40). What rendered the land empty is when God and his laws (terms and conditions) are disobeyed and idolatry and immorality is practised (Lv 18:2–30; Viviano 1999:41). They defile themselves and God’s land, rendering God, his laws, and his will absent; hence, they uncover the nakedness of their fathers, mothers, fathers’ wives, sisters, and others (Ps 85:1; Von Rad 1963:133). In this regard, as part of his missional strategy to achieve God’s own purpose, Yahweh God not only used the Israelites but also the foreign nations like the Egyptians (Ex 1:13ff.; Is 10:24ff.; Ezk 20:8), the Assyrian (2 Ki 17:5ff.; Is 10:5ff., 12) and the Babylonian (Jr 25:9; 50:17; 51:20–23; Ezk 21:19–23) as his ‘servants’ and his instrument of punishment, discipline and correction-even against the Israelites and Judeans respectively for breaking his covenant, practicing idolatry, and engaging in immorality and in social injustices (Dt 28:49–52).
Noah’s prophetic pronouncement of Canaan’s curse implies the absence of God
The glimpse and framework of God’s measure for all nations and his rationale (pretext) to all, reflects the same degree of fairness and justice by continuously deferring, derailing, and delaying the general curse (death warrant or penalty), based on Yahweh God’s love (grace) and justice (mercy). Hence, God delays the curse of the Canaanites (the lowest slaves) so that they may come to their senses and repent from their sins (Gn 15:16; Ezk 18:31–32; Copan 2011). It was out of his mercy that God patiently not only delayed the punishment for their sins, which according to him had not reached full measure, but also granted them a grace period to repent. According to the Deuteronomistic writers, the Canaanites were hostile to the Israelites (Lemche 1991:23, 164ff.). They worship Baal, a forbidden cult (Ex 20:3) and practice sexual perversion (rape and incest), malpractices (bestiality and child sacrifices), and they have religious drunken orgies (Lv 18:3, 21–28). The narrator highlighted that God delayed his judgement up until the fourth generation of the Israelites in Egypt so that they would enter the land of promise, namely Canaan (Gn 15:16; Hess 2007:91ff.; Levinas 1989:192). It was under Joshua, as a major fulfilment of this prophecy, in 1400 BC that he led the Israelites to conquer the Canaanites and invade their land (cf. Gn. 10:19; Mt 11:12; Archer 1982:86ff.; Atkinson 1990:169ff.; Calvin 1854:306).
Noah’s prophecy and the time frame
As part of the prophetic framework, prophets point backwards, in addressing the present (immediate) context with future anticipation (predictions). In this case, three things are important regarding the prophetic pronouncement: firstly, it is traced from the post-flood story, namely to Ham’s act of seeing his father’s nakedness. It is more than a physiological sense of seeing (outward acts), but an ethical (moral) sense of seeing (inward nature): of seeing (idolatry, immorality, disrespect, mockery, perversion and depravity) from within experienced by the Canaanites (Hab 2:15; Lm 4:21; Morris 1992:154; Rashkow 1998:90). Secondly, it is addressing the Israelites; on the one hand, out of God’s love and mercy, he gave them a land (a conditional covenant) with the circumcision as its sign (Gn 17:8) and hence revealing himself to them as his covenant God to be trusted and obeyed (Gn 12; 22; Hawk 2000:24) and on the other hand, out of God’s justice, God protects his monotheistic Israel from worshipping idols (gods) and not to defile or pollute themselves as it invites his wrath. Thirdly, out of God’s justice and holiness, God is seen against all who do wrong, not only against the Canaanite man, woman, child, livestock, and other possessions (Kaminsky 2003:397ff.), but also the Israelites during the Assyrian exile in 722 BC and the Babylonian exile in 586 BC when they compromised their faith in Yahweh and committed idolatry and immorality (cf. 1 & 2 Ki).
An ultimate missio Dei-led curse of Canaan
Understanding God’s nature as the God of both love and justice for all nations
God revealed himself in the Bible. All nations should know who he is, what he says and what he does. This includes knowing the causes and effects of ḥērem [warfare] by the Israelites against the Canaanites. In Noah’s prophecy, Yahweh is at the centre of the focus and hence the central powerhouse, not only in blessing those who trust and obey him (Gn 10:25; 46:27; Dt 32:7) but also to curse those who continue to mistrust and disobey him (cf. Gn 12:3; Ex 12:48ff.; Is 56:3, 6; Dt 10:18ff.; 23:7ff.; Ml 3:5; Gl 3:29; Heb 11:9ff.; Jacob 1974:69ff.). Genesis 10 to 12 confirmed that Yahweh revealed himself and his presence, power and plans within the Tent (Temple) through the family line of Shem, Eber, Terah, Abraham, and Jacob (and the 12 tribes of Israel) and the seed through which the Messiah would come so that he can use them to reach out to all other nations (Gn 25:22ff.; Rm 9:6ff.). In that regard, Noah’s prophecy anticipates that in all covenant blessings, including the Noahic and Abrahamic covenant, trusting and obeying Yahweh is uncovered as a criterion not only to unite the non-Israelite descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth with the possibility of entering into a covenant relation with him, but also to purify them in terms of believing in, belonging to, behaving before, and worshipping the one true and living God (Gn 9:26; 12:3; Lv 17:8; 19:34; Nm 15:14; 19:10; Dt 7:6; 26:12). God made an exception after he chose Israel as his chosen instrument of mission to reach the nations (cf. Nineveh in Jnh 4:2) and act outside of the normal covenant stipulations and relationship (Am 3:2; 5:11; 8:6).
God’s initiative covenant with Abraham as part of God’s revelation and redemption history
Through the Tent of Shem, the blessed presence of Yahweh God is available and accessible to other nations; hence, Noah’s prophetic pronouncement reveals God’s plan and purposes to redeem all nations by pointing backwards and forward. It points backwards in the sense that the same God initiated and preached the gospel to Adam and Eve (cf. Gn 3:15; 5:26) and right through Noah to Shem’s tent (cf. Gn 9:25–27) climaxed in God’s final purpose to bless all the people groups through Abraham (cf. Gn 12:3c), which is the same gospel that is being proclaimed to all the nations, including the Canaanite, the vilest sexual offender. In Genesis 12:3, God, through Abraham, chooses the Israelites to be his instrument to bless all nations. The Israelites are chosen as his unique possession, a holy nation among nations and the priests who stand between God and other nations and hence God’s channel of blessing to other nations, and to witness to them the one true and living Yahweh God (Ex 19:5ff.). Through the Israelites cities of refugees led by the Priest and Levites, God’s laws were taught to the Israelite nation and the rest of the nations, all of which were taught of who Yahweh God is, says, and does (Nm 35:28; Heb 7:26ff.; Rev 21:22ff.). In Genesis 15:13–16, the covenant God himself (only) was faithful and responsible to fulfil the requirements. Abraham was asleep. He did not walk through. In the ANE custom, the ceremony involves the two parties entering the covenant, and walking through the carcasses split in half. In Genesis 15:14–16 God reveals to Abram a glimpse of his plan and purpose for the Israelites, namely that they were going to spend 400 years in slavery in Egypt. God will punish their oppressors, the Egyptians, and then he will deliver them. It was a period of God’s mercy and long-suffering, when He withheld his death warrant. It was within 400–500 years that God was willing to offer the Amorites (the Canaanites) an opportunity to repent (Gn 10:15ff.; Copan 2011).
It is confirmed by the Messianic line: The promised seed from Genesis 3:3:15 to 9:25–27
The genealogy of the Messianic line of the promised ‘seed of the woman’ runs from Adam, through Noah, Shem and reaches its climax in Abram (cf. Gn 3:15; 5:29; 9:25–27; 11:10–26; 12:1–2). Yahweh God blesses all nations (Noah’s descendants) through the tent and the line of Shem (cf. Gn. 4:16 – 6:5; Odhiambo 2007:32). The Noahic Covenant (and blessing) in Genesis 9:18–29, is confirmed and manifested through one nation, the Israelites based on Yahweh God’s covenant relationship with Abraham and David, who are from the line of Shem respectively. Yahweh God confirmed and manifested his grace and mercy to the Canaanites, the lowest slaves, who believed in him. They were chosen and counted as part of God’s people, including women like Rahab, Lot’s younger daughter, Tamar, and Ruth. And hence all those who commit the immoral sins that Canaan represents deserve the death penalty (warrant). In that regard, God covered those who covered the ‘nakedness’ and/or the shame and guilt of Adam and Noah respectively, covered the curse of these Canaanite women and hence Yahweh God included them in the Davidic line as his ancestors because of the same mercy that is extended to them as God extended to the Israelites (cf. Jos 2:1; Rt 4:11, 12; 18–22;1 Ki 14:31; 2 Chr 12:13; Heb 11:31; Ja 2:25; Kohn 2006:150–152). Matthew also highlighted these women to proclaim to his Jewish audience that Jesus came genealogically all the way through the Old Testament through sinners to save sinners, including the Canaanite women (cf. Mt 1:3–5; 9:13; 12:7).
Conclusion
This article draws our attention to the paradox in understanding the mission of God [missio Dei] as the God of both love and justice within the context of war against nations like the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, and even the Israelites. The misreading of biblical texts like Genesis 9:25 leads to the varied pretexts or driving forces behind the warfare, land grabs, and related matters. This article attempts to answer the question: What is the motive behind the curse of Canaan in Genesis 9:25? The misreading of biblical texts like Genesis 9:25 leads to the varied pretexts or driving forces behind the warfare, land grabs, and related matters. This article is set up to discuss three aspects: (1) the formation: understanding the basic concepts of nakedness, holiness, and curse before the fall of human beings into sin; (2) the deformation: understanding the critical reception of the curse of Canaan within the fall of human beings into sin; and (3) the transformation: understanding the ultimate missio Dei led curse of Canaan as a paradox of God’s nature as the God of love and justice. This article adds value by uncovering the missio Dei behind Genesis 9:25 which serves as the basis for critical reflection and reception of the missional guidelines which should be received, appreciated, and applied by God’s people inside and outside the faith community – to avoid the further misreading of biblical texts, which is still the basis for varied pretexts or driving forces behind the holy wars, genocide, land grabs, and related matters.
Acknowledgements
Firstly, my thanks to the Triune God, and I acknowledge that all glory should be attributed to him, as stated in 1 Corinthians (10:31) and Colossians (3:17). Secondly, my sincere gratitude to Alvinah, my wife, for her Proverb 31 support – also to Ms Blanch Carolus for her profound academic support. Additionally, I acknowledge the unwavering support of my children, Vhuhwavho, Mufulufheli, Wompfuna, Thamathama, Lupfumopfumo and Tshontswikisaho.
Competing interests
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Takalani A. Muswubi: conceptualisation; formal analysis; writing – original draft. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own. The author has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The author confirms that the data supporting this study and its findings are available within the article and its listed references.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s findings, and content.
References
Archer, G.L., Jr., 1982, Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Atkinson, D., 1990, The message of Genesis 1–11: The dawn of creation, InterVarsity, Leicester.
Avishur, Y., 1999, ‘The Story of Noah’s drunkenness and his son’s behavior’, in Studies in biblical narrative, pp. 41–56, Graphit Press, Tel Aviv.
Bergsma, J.S. & Hahn, S.W., 2005, ‘Noah’s nakedness and the curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20–27)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 124(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040989
Calvin, J., 1854, Commentaries on the Book of Joshua, transl. H. Beveridge (ed.), Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh.
Cassuto, U., 1965, Book of Genesis, Magnus Press, Jerusalem.
Chalmers, A., 2009, ‘The importance of the Noahic covenant to biblical theology’, Tyndale Bulletin 60(2), 207–216. https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.29271
Copan, P., 2011, Is God a moral monster: Making sense of the Old Testament God, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Fonts, D.M., 1997, Sebet: New international dictionary of Old Testament theology and Exegesis, vol. 1, p. 27, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Gard, D.L., 2003, ‘The case for eschatological continuity’, in S.N. Gundry (ed.), Show them no mercy: Four views on God and the Canaanite Genocide, pp. 111–144, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Garlan, Y., 1988, Slavery in ancient Greece, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Gunkel, H., 1997, Genesis, Mercer University Press, Mercer, GA.
Hamilton, V., 1990, Genesis, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Harrill, J.A., 1998, The manumission of slaves in early Christianity, issue 32 of Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.
Hawk, D.L., 2000, Joshua, The Liturgical Press, Minnesota, MN.
Hepner, G., 2001, ‘The relationship between biblical narrative and biblical law’, Jewish Bible Quarterly 29(4), 1–7.
Hieke, T., 2003, The genealogies of Genesis, Herder Publishing House, Freiburg im Breisgau.
Hess, R.S., 2007, Israelite Religions, An archaeological and Biblical survey, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Holloway, J., 1998, ‘The ethical dilemma of holy war’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 41, 44–46.
Jacob, B., 1974, The first book of the Bible: Genesis, Ktav Publishing House, New York, NY.
Kaiser, W.C., Davids, P.H., Bruce, F.F. & Brauch, M.T., 1996, Hard sayings of the Bible, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, IL.
Kaminsky, J., 2003, ‘Did election imply the mistreatment of non-Israelites?’, Harvard Theological Review 96(4), 397–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816003000506
Kauffmann, Y., 1972, The religion of Israel, Shocken Books, New York, NY.
Keener, C.S., 1999, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina Series, vol. 1, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Killebrew, A.E., 2005, Biblical peoples and ethnicity, An archaeological study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel 1300 – 1100 B.C.E., Brill, Leiden.
Kohn, R.L., 2006, ‘A prophet like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s relationship to the Torah’, ZAW 114, 146–154.
Kugel, J.L., 1997, The Bible as it was, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lemche, N.P., 1991, The Canaanites and their land, The tradition of the Canaanites, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Levinas, E., 1989, ‘Reality and its shadow’, in S. Hand (ed.), The Levinas reader, pp. 130–143, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Lohfink, N., 1974, ‘hērem’, in G.J. Botterweck (ed.), Theological dictionary of the Old Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Longman, T., III, 2003, ‘The case for spiritual continuity’, in Show them no mercy: Four views on God and the Canaanite Genocide, pp. 161–195. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Luz, U., 1989, Matthew 1–7: A commentary, Augsburg, Minneapolis, MN.
Meek, R., 2020, The Suzerain Vassal Treaty (Covenant) in the Old Testament, viewed 21 November 2024, from https://russmeek.com/2020/10/the-suzerain-vassal-treaty-covenant-in-the-old-testament/.
Merriam-Webster, 2025, blood, Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, viewed 17 January 2025, from https://www.Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood.
Merrill, E.H., 2003, ‘The case for moderate discontinuity’, in Show them no mercy: Four views on God and the Canaanite Genocide, pp. 61–110, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Morris, L., 1992, The Gospel according to Matthew, A Pillar Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press, Grand Rapids, MI.
Muswubi, T.A., 2024, ‘Missional perspective of Canaan’s curse as a blessing in disguise: A biblical paradox’, Verbum et Ecclesia 45(1), a3258. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v45i1.3258
Odhiambo, N.O., 2007, ‘Ham’s Sin and Noah’s Curse: A critique of current views’, PhD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX.
Olthuis, J.H., 1976, The word of God and biblical authority, PU for CHE, Potchefstroom.
Olthuis, J.M., 1987, A hermeneutics of ultimacy: Peril or promise? 90 p., University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Rainey, A.F., 2000, ‘Canaan’, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible, pp. 212–215, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Rashkow, I.N., 1998, ‘Daddy-dearest and the “invisible spirit of wine”’, in A. Brenner (ed.), Genesis: A feminist companion, pp. 82–107, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Retsö, J., 2003, The Arabs in antiquity: Their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads, Routledge Curzon, London.
Ross, A.P., 1980, ‘The table of nations in Genesis 10 – It’s content’, Bibliotheca Sacra 138, 22–34.
Sailhamer, J.H., 1992, The Pentateuch as narrative, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Sailhamer, J.H., 2008, Genesis – Leviticus, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
Smith, M.H., 1978, ‘The church and covenant theology’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21(1), 47–65.
Viviano, P.A., 1999, ‘Source criticism’, in S.L. McKenzie & S.R. Haynes (eds.), To each its own meaning, pp. 35–57, Westminster John Knox, Lousiville, KY.
Von Rad, G., 1963, Genesis: A commentary, transl. J.H. Marks, 2nd edn., (rev.), SCM, London.
Von Rad, G., 1991, Holy War in Ancient Israel, transl. M.J, Dawn (ed.), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Westermann, C., 1984, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, Augsburg Fortress Pub, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Wickham, L.R., 1984, ‘The class struggle in the ancient Greek world, by G.E.M. de Sainte Croix, London, Duckworth, 1981. Pp. viii, 732’, Scottish Journal of Theology 37(4), 544–546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600055836
Zelnick-Abramovitz, R., 2005, Not wholly free: The concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world, Brill, Leiden.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
