Writing this late at night after a crazy day so claim even less inspiration than normal. Reading from the end of the story of Noah to the beginning of Abram. Noticed a couple of things that made me think.
Firstly, when Noah gets drunk from the wine in his vineyard, innocently the story suggests, Ham his son sees him naked and draws attention to him rather than covering him up discretely. For this mistake of Ham's, Canann gets punished - in fact Noah curses the young Canaan for the foolishness of his father. That led me to wonder secondly, whether the 'justification' for the aggressive conquest of Canaan comes from this passage - that in the communities of the day, the descendants of Canaan were despised and pictured in negative terms for this reason. Maybe it was the other way round. The Jewish nation were so prejudiced against their former neighbours that they 'wrote in' to their religious history something that confirmed and 'justified' their hatred and suspicion?
Secondly, am really challenged as i write this, because my theology and view of scripture is being disturbed (as in shuffled around) somewhat. As i read this primitive literature, its seems so much like justification for actions from the future. It reads as though it is written hundreds of years later attempting to rationalise and explain, maybe even deify, events of their past. A decidedly different style and feel though as we enter the story of Abram and prepare to see more of Jesus in God's covenant of grace.
Lastly, hadn't realised Nimrod helicopters may well have their name based on Gen 10:8ff, and the tower of babel seems a random story somewhat that fits into the context of my thinking above.
Am sure someone out there can correct my erroneous biblical scholarship?
No comments:
Post a Comment