Noah cursed Canaan because
it represented God’s sentence on the sins of the Canaanites; or
Canaan's father Ham had sinned against Noah.
The narrator’s purpose in the beginning chapters of Genesis is to explain features of reality. He has explained the origin of sin, guilt, mortality, musical instruments, and metallurgy. Now he explains why Canaan has become an ungodly nation that should be driven from the land. The idea is that the sons of a father will sometimes fall into the behaviour of their father, and this seems to be the case when it comes to Canaan. The father of the nation of Canaan, Ham, has sinned against his father by exposing his nakedness. Thus, Noah curses Ham’s line, namely, his son Canaan, for the disrespectful behaviour. Centuries later, Ham’s descendants continue to follow the characteristics of their father, and Israel is warned not to partake in the ungodly practices of the Canaanites (Lev. 18:3)
Some argue that the author does not have politics or the future status of Canaan in view, but that the account simply recalls a family affair. They suggest that the sin of Ham was severe in ancient Near Eastern culture, and so the curse suited the crime. Others suggest there was a tradition in ancient Near Eastern cultures of punishing the children for the crimes of the fathers. The problem with this view is that it overlooks the genre and the context of the story. The purpose of primeval narratives is to ground features of reality in the past. In this case the narrative explains that Israel is blessed because Shem was blessed, and Israel comes from his line. It also explains why Canaan was ungodly. The narrator solidifies this purpose by mentioning the fact that Ham was the father of Canaan twice (Gen. 9:18, 22), without naming the sons of Shem or Japheth.
Thus, it is mostly likely that Noah curses Canaan because the event anticipates and explains the ungodly stature of the Canaanites.
Interpretation 1:
Noah’s curse on Canaan represents God’s sentence on the sins of the Canaanites.
Summary:
When Ham sins against his father by revealing his father’s nakedness to his brothers, Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan. The lewd behaviour of Ham anticipates the behaviour of his son, Canaan, and Canaan’s descendants. In this way, Ham’s behaviour exemplifies the subsequent behaviour of the Canaanites, notorious for their abhorrent sexual practices.1
We are often tempted to partake in foolish conduct without realizing that our sin affects not only ourselves and our relationship with God but also those closest to us. If we develop patterns of sinful behaviour, our children and friends might mimic our conduct, thus placing themselves under God’s judgment.
Advocates:
Bill Arnold
Walter Brueggemann
Kenneth Mathews
Gordon Wenham
Minor differences:
Our authors agree that the text is interested in explaining why Canaan was cursed and Israel was blessed. They see the origins of this curse in the behaviour of Ham, which resulted in a curse on his son Canaan. Bill Arnold writes, “The text is clearly interested in the source of the curse on Canaan, and thus Ham is identified twice as the father of Canaan (Genesis 9:18, Genesis 9:22)."2 Gordon Wenham writes similarly, explaining that the text represents Ham as a sort of type whose behaviour will be reflected in his family down the line.3 Walter Brueggemann agrees that the text explains the future status of Canaan, but he is also more cynical. For him, the narrator uses the text to root the contemporary political issues between Israel and Canaan in pre-history so as to justify Israel’s position over Canaan on theological grounds.4
Arguments
Interpretation 2:
Canaan was cursed because his father Ham had sinned against Noah.
Summary: Ham had sinned against his father, Noah, by telling his brothers that Noah was naked. This was an offensive sin in the ancient Near East because it implies that Ham mocked his father. Noah curses Ham’s son, Canaan, for his disrespectful behaviour.
Advocates:
Kenneth Mathews
Claus Westermann
Minor differences:
Claus Westermann recognizes that this question has received ample attention in the history of interpretation.10 The question is why Noah would curse Ham’s son, Canaan, for a sin that Ham himself committed. As far as Westermann sees it, most commentators have made too much of the issue. He offers a review of various positions, and based on the peculiarities entailed by such views, remarks, One can only be amazed at the ingenious and fanciful attempts.
11 For his own part, Westermann contends that the most straightforward explanation is that the son who has dishonoured his father is to live in disgrace; it is in the context of a family event.
12 For Westermann, the story does not intentionally anticipate any political situation between Israel and Canaan.
There is a sense in which Kenneth Mathews agrees with Westermann. Mathews argues for an ancient concept he calls corporate personality.13 The idea is that there is a unity in the father and the son where the deeds of the father anticipate the deeds of the son.14 Thus, it is fitting, within the family situation, for Noah to curse Ham’s son, Canaan, who will likely behave similarly to his father.15 Since Mathews agrees with Westermann that the account reflects a family situation, we include these authors together. At the same time, Mathews and Westermann differ because Mathews also thinks the story intentionally anticipates the future political situation between Israel and Canaan.16
Arguments
25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”