The Danger of Dainty Morsels
by Jeremy Hodges
Humans are often highly susceptible to gossip, and the Bible's clear statements about the danger associated with it show how susceptible we really are. (Proverbs 18:8; 20:19; 26:22; Romans 1:29; II Timothy 3:3). The one who is spreading the gossip likes the air of authority and insight it gives them without any care for those who are harmed. Those who listen appreciate the shocking details they hear and delight in the downfall of those who are being slandered.
Lately, it has become more popular for some bible teachers to present new understandings on well-known biblical accounts for the purpose of exciting the congregation or demonstrating their superior insight. They focus on details that would not be apparent to a cursory read, and often point out extra salacious flourishes. They sometimes use scholarly words to give their presentations the air of authority, and the appeal is that the church is now "in the know" on details other saints aren't. One such "new interpretation" that seems to function like gossip is about an already sad and terrible account in scripture involving Noah and his son Ham.
In Genesis 9:20-29, Noah was recorded as planting a vineyard, growing grapes, and eventually drinking to the point of inebriation. Because Noah was so drunk, he did not remain dressed in his tent, and his son Ham saw him in an uncovered and shameful state. Instead of covering his father and protecting his dignity, Ham told his two brothers, who then covered their father in respect for his position. As a result, Noah pronounced a curse on Ham's son Canaan.
One popular "new understanding" states that because the account relates that since Noah's nakedness was "uncovered," somehow this means that Ham violated the incest laws of Leviticus 18:6-18, and thus had slept with Noah's wife, Ham's mother. Although this is not stated in the account at all, this "hidden detail" is presented as fact and repeated by church members who are impressed with the speaker's familiarity with Hebrew and grasp of "intertextuality."
The account is difficult for a number of reasons, but it helps the readers of Genesis understand something about Canaan, the land they were being sent to conquer, since the people of Canaan were the descendants of Noah's son Ham. It also warns later readers about the dangers of becoming drunk to the point of senselessness, and ironically, about the damage that gossip can cause. What this account does not need is extra "steamy" details involving incest like some daytime television drama.
What Ham did was bad enough as it is presented in the account, because he slandered his father, who was literally the most powerful person on the planet at the time. As the head of the only family left, what Ham did would do incalculable damage to Noah's authority, adding to the mistakes that Noah had already made. What Shem and Japheth did was demonstrate love for their father. (Proverbs 10:12, cf. James 5:20; I Peter 4:8). We do not need to uncover even more hidden sin to ascribe to Ham in this sad account.
When listening to Bible teachers, let's be careful to let Scripture say what happened, and not fall for the appeal of "dainty morsels," even when doled out from the pulpit.
