On the topic of Hama, they asked me a question, or rather, eight questions at once. Let's explore these questions together:

1 question: Who exposed the drunken Noah - he himself or Ham undressed him? 9:20-21 requires Noah to be stripped, because the enumeration requires it: Noah began, planted, drank, became drunk, and (lay) naked.

Answer: Yes, in Genesis 9:20-21 we find five verbs, and they all refer to Noah. He did all these things:

He began to till the land;

He planted a vineyard;

He drank wine;

He became drunk (as a consequence of drinking wine);

He lay naked in his tent.

What sinful things did Noah do, and in which is absolutely no fault of his? The fact that he began to cultivate the land after the flood is good, and that he planted a vineyard is also not bad. The words that he planted a vineyard do not say that he planted nothing else besides grapes. The vineyard is mentioned here in connection with subsequent events, but does not at all exclude the cultivation of the land for other purposes. By planting a vineyard, Noah did not sin in any way. Grapes are one of the noble crops created by God. Christ used him as an example to show His relationship with the church. He valued its fruit by partaking of it on the last night of His earthly ministry. Pure grape juice is very beneficial for the human body.

The next third verb or Noah's third action is sinful. He drank wine. The fourth act, "he got drunk", is actually a consequence of drinking wine (fermented). And fifth, he lay naked in his tent. There is nothing sinful in this. He was not lying in the square, not in a crowded place, he was lying "in his tent" - in his bedroom. Apparently, in those days there was no underwear, and outerwear was simpler than ours; and as soon as he turned over in a dream, the cape fell back, and he was already naked, he didn’t have to literally undress him, or he himself did some painstaking actions, as we do, having our clothes in our civilization with zippers and buttons . Well, what's wrong with him sleeping naked in his tent? Does everyone sleep in their own bedroom in pajamas tonight?

Question 2: Ham's actions were limited to the fact that he stumbled upon a drunken, naked father in his tent, and also told his brothers about what he saw?

The fact is that some stories are very poorly described in Scripture, and the story of Noah also belongs to this category. Apparently the author's goal was to report something heinous, but he did not want to go into detail. Remember films in Soviet times? A guy and a girl hugged, kissed, and now they show the sky, the birds fly, and immediately the next day they show: they go happy, and soon she reports young man that they will have a child. There was no direct visible display from the vicinity, but this can be guessed, this is already an axiom. To many biblical facts, people today say: “Where does it say so in Scripture”? They want Scripture to write everything about all its heroes with all the details. You can’t legally prove their closeness from the film, they didn’t show it, but indirectly you need to guess about it, especially if she announced that she was pregnant. She didn't get pregnant from the kiss.

So it is with Noah: legally we will not prove anything, we will not deduce the axiom what exactly happened to him. With regard to a guy and a girl, the conclusion can be made unambiguous, but in relation to a father and son or even a grandson, it is already more difficult to make an unambiguous conclusion, we can only go through a few assumptions, but still this will remain within the framework of our hypotheses, our assumptions. Let's check the hypotheses that can be put forward and that put forward.

1 hypothesis. Ham looked into his father's tent, perhaps he was surprised that the sun was already high, and his father was still sleeping and not getting up, and decided to ask what happened to his father there? And then he sees him naked and sleeping. He went and told the brothers about it, who went backwards and covered their father without seeing his nakedness. On the one hand, this option fits very gently into the message that we have. Well, just like in the movie: hugged, kissed, and the birds fly across the sky. Prove something else. But let's think, what is the sin of Ham? Did he know that his father was lying naked, he stumbled upon it quite by accident. There is no sin in this. If we assume that it is his fault that he told his brothers about this, then there is more of a hint that he saw something more than just a naked father lying, because there is nothing surprising in a simply naked father: a man lies in his tent, and that's it. This is tantamount to looking into a toilet cubicle that happened to be unlocked and seeing a person sitting on the toilet. It will somehow turn out inconvenient, but there is nothing shameful in this, he will not run to tell everyone that he saw a person, even his father, sitting on the toilet. I don’t know how it was there immediately after the flood, but today it is not considered shameful for a father and sons, and for mothers and daughters to bathe in a bath. Now, of course, public baths, just like telegraphs, have lost all meaning, since in every apartment and in their own houses there is a shower or a bath, or both. As a child, I remember how my father and I went to a public bath, there is nothing wrong with that. On the basis of what happened to Noah, many today are just declaring that it is impossible for a father and his sons to wash together in the bathhouse, you see, they say, what a curse came from the fact that the son saw his father naked. This is fanaticism, the text suggests something else.

2 hypothesis. Let's take as a hypothesis what the author of these questions asks in the last eighth question. I am quoting the question:

Question 8: Finally, they pay attention to the fact that it seems to be only about Noah that it is not said "and begat sons and daughters." Which gives rise to another version (also not mine): that Ham castrated his father. The basis for such an act is generally called fantastic: like Ham was afraid that the elderly Noah would suddenly give birth to so many children that the territory of the Earth would have to be crushed too much. So I decided to limit the birth rate like this.

Answer: I also immediately push this hypothesis aside. For the castration of the father, it was not necessary to wait until the father was naked. Do you think that the father would not have screamed in pain, even if he was drunk? There, such a panic would have risen among all relatives. And what would happen: castrated his father and runs to inform his brothers. The father is bleeding, he needs to be helped somehow, and they go backwards and cover him, bloodied from castration, with their clothes. Throw this hypothesis out of your head as completely unsuitable in this case.

Concerning the fact that Noah is not said to have begotten sons and daughters. Maybe he did not give birth to daughters, in any case, his three sons, his wife and three daughters-in-law were saved from the flood. I don’t know if before the flood, when he was young, three sons were born from him, then after the flood, why should anyone be afraid that a grandfather who is over six hundred years old suddenly gives birth to so many children from his grandmother that the territory of the Earth will have to be crushed too much. It would be faster if the brothers killed each other (or castrated each other), so that it would not be crowded for them on our “small” land.

3 hypothesis. Here is the third question. I quote him:

Question 3: If Ham is guilty only of a mental sin (he saw, mocked, did not respect), then how to explain the expression “Noah woke up from his wine and found out what his younger son had done to him”? We find a similar expression in the description of (near) sexual actions (Judges 19:22, Esph 2:12, Job 31:10).

If what was done “above him” was physically noticeable, then this expression takes on meaning: first, Noah felt / saw some signs of actions (clearly not mental), then he began to look for the culprit. But how can you, even with a hangover, feel someone’s neglect and ridicule if you wake up carefully covered? Those. there is an opinion that Ham raped a helpless father. And his story to the brothers also suggests that he boasted of this, or even offered them such “entertainment”. If Ham's sin was of a sexual nature, why is it not explicitly stated, like other similar precedents in the book of Genesis?

Answer: Exactly, there is a verb here that makes us think that something was done to the aged Noah. This is the verb "did". Yes, this option is most suitable to take as a hypothesis, mind you, a hypothesis, but not an axiom, to explain what happened to the drunken Noah. But I would build a slightly different hypothesis here. Not Ham, who had a wife and was not sexually hungry, committed violence against his father, but Canaan, the grandson of Noah, did it the fastest. Apparently he was a young man, unmarried and could well take advantage of his grandfather's impotence and satisfy his sexual desires. Perhaps Ham saw precisely this disgrace, and instead of preventing the iniquity of his son, he went to tell the brothers. If Canaan physically dishonored Noah, then Ham dishonored him morally, they say, you see this patriarch, the righteous, so he got drunk to the point of drunkenness, that's how he needs it, what my son did to him. When the brothers arrived, Canaan must have fled. Why did the brothers cover their father while walking backwards. I think not because it was something sinful just to see your father naked, but seeing the heinous deed committed by Canaan and Ham, they even went backwards to spite them, to show that their attitude is completely opposite to these two scoundrels.

I do not insist on this hypothesis, maybe everything was wrong, but I see this option as more plausible. In any case, Noah himself is largely to blame for what happened to him. Drunkenness brought shame to the old man. It made the one who was kind and wise, who built the ark for a hundred and twenty years and preached to the antediluvian world, a disgrace. He became the subject of ridicule and contempt. And he apparently thought exactly the same way, as they say today, that you can drink moderately, it’s even, they say, good, it amuses the heart. Perhaps Noah, in his old age, also consoled himself with the fact that I would drink moderately, and drink more moderately, here are the consequences.

Question 4: Why does the text call Ham the younger son of Noah, although before that he is listed second three times and here, i.e. average?

Answer: In the synodal translation, it is not the younger one, but the smaller one. I quote:

“Noah woke up from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him” (Gen. 9:24).

David Josephon also translates this text in the Torah:

And Noah woke up from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.

With regard to the "smaller son", it can be assumed that this is not Ham, but Canaan, the fourth son of Ham:

"The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Fut and Canaan" (Gen. 10:6).

The fact is that in those days, the son was called not only a literal son, but also a grandson. Canaan was the youngest member of Noah's family at that time, and most likely by the words "his younger son" is meant "the younger grandson."

Here one more nuance should be taken into account: The curse pronounced over Canaan means most likely not a punishment, but as a prophecy. Neither Canaan nor the other descendants of Ham are included in the prophecy in the framework of an inevitable fate. It is simply a prediction of what God foresaw and announced through Noah.

Questions 5-6: According to Noah, whose slave will Canaan be: Shem, Japheth, or both? It turns out, first Shem, then Japheth? Is Shem's praise expressed in the fact that he will believe in the true God, and Japheth in his multitude to such an extent that he will feel cramped, and he will "occupy" even Shem's tent?

Answer: Instead of blessing Shem, notice, Noah praises the God Shem, Jehovah (Yahweh), as Moses did later on Gad (Deut. 33:20). Having Jehovah as his God, Shem became the subject and heir of all salvation-related blessings that Jehovah bestows upon His faithful ones.

Noah, expressing his blessing to Japheth, in the word "spread" expresses a significant dispersion and prosperity of the descendants of Japheth. What is meant by the words, "Let him dwell in the tents of Shem"? The meaning of these words can be understood in two ways: because the descendants of Japheth eventually appropriated the lands of the Simites and inhabited them, and also because the descendants of Japheth were to take part along with the Simites in the blessing regarding the salvation promised to Shem. When the gospel began to be preached Greek(the language of Japheth), then Israel, being a descendant of Shem, although they were subdued by Japheth Rome, nevertheless became a spiritual conqueror over Japheth and in this way figuratively received them into their tents.

Question 7: How was this prophecy fulfilled? With Shem and Japheth, "everything is clear": they say, the Christians "evicted the Jews from the tent of salvation." What about the slavery of Canaan? When did the Semites enslave the Canaanites? When, having come from Egypt, did they conquer the land of Canaan? Then it turns out that 9:26 was fulfilled in the Old Testament era, beginning with the time of Joshua. Although there was a stretch there, because the Hamite Egypt dominated the Canaanite land, and the Jews did not really drive out the Canaanites (Judgement 1-2).

From 9:27 things are even worse. The conquest of Canaan and the enslavement of the Canaanites (although the Torah commands them not to enslave, but to completely exterminate them, which is not the same thing) was clearly a charitable act directly directed by the Almighty. But the conquest of Canaan by Japheth is explained by all white missionaries very simply: this is the Christian trade in black slaves in the 15-18 centuries. And then it is necessary either to rehabilitate the phenomenon of the (in particular, "Christian") slave trade, likening it to the Exodus from Egypt, or to recognize that 9:26 and 9:27 are fulfilled according to different standards. But they are spoken by the righteous on one occasion and at one time.

And the relations of Egypt and the Canaanites with Israel do not even closely resemble the relations between the mighty European and American colonizers and backward Africa.

Answer: I answered the first part of the question after the 6th question. But in relation to God in relation to the slave traders and the enslavement of the Canaanites, what can be said? The fact of the matter is that God did not give Canaan as a punishment to be a slave, so that the descendants of Shem and Japheth would trade them. God foresaw that it would be so, and that's all that was on God's part. God foresaw the fate of Jacob and Esau, and in His foresight there is no responsibility for the fact that Esau was a worthless man. So it is here: God is generally against slavery, and He did not command the enslavement of Canaan, His plan was to push them to other lands. But what actually happened in history, God foresaw and predicted through Noah.

Pastor Alexander Serkov

The sons of Noah, or the Table of Nations - an extensive list of the descendants of Noah, described in the book "Genesis" of the Old Testament and representing traditional ethnology.

According to the Bible, God, saddened by the evil deeds that mankind is doing, sent a great flood known as the Earth to destroy life. But there was one man who was distinguished by virtue and righteousness, whom God decided to save along with his family so that they would continue the human race. This was the tenth and last of the antediluvian patriarchs named Noah. The ark, which he built at the direction of God to save himself from the flood, was able to accommodate his family and animals of all kinds that remained on Earth. He had three sons born before the flood.

After the water left, they settled on the lower slopes on the north side. Noah began to cultivate the land, and invented winemaking. Once the patriarch drank a lot of wine, got drunk and fell asleep. While he was lying drunk and naked in his tent, Noah's son Ham saw this and told the brothers. Shem and Japheth entered the tent, turning away their faces, and covered their father. When Noah woke up and realized what had happened, he cursed Ham's son Canaan.

For two thousand years this bible story caused a lot of controversy. What is its meaning? Why did the patriarch curse his grandson? Most likely, it reflected the fact that at the time when it was written, the Canaanites (descendants of Canaan) were enslaved by the Israelites. Europeans interpreted this story as saying that Ham was the ancestor of all Africans, indicating racial characteristics, in particular, dark skin. Later, the slave traders of Europe and America used the biblical story to justify their activities, supposedly Noah's son Ham and his offspring were cursed as a degenerate race. Of course, this is wrong, especially since the compilers of the Bible did not consider him or Canaan to be dark-skinned Africans.

In almost all cases, the names of Noah's descendants represent tribes and countries. Shem, Ham and Japheth represent the three largest groups of tribes that were known to the authors of the Bible. Ham is called the ancestor of the southern peoples who lived in that region of Africa that adjoined Asia. The languages ​​they spoke were called Hamitic (Coptic, Berber, some Ethiopian).

According to the Bible, Noah's son Shem is the first-born, and he is especially honored because he is the ancestor of the Semitic peoples, including Jews. They lived in Syria, Palestine, Chaldea, Assyria, Elam, Arabia. The languages ​​they spoke included the following: Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Assyrian. Two years after the flood, his third son, Arfaxad, was born, whose name is mentioned in family tree Jesus Christ.

Noah's son Japheth is the forefather of the northern peoples (in Europe and northwestern Asia).

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the biblical story of the origin of nations was accepted by many as historical fact, and even today it is still believed by some Muslims and Christians. While some believe that the table of peoples refers to the entire population of the Earth, others perceive it as a guide for local ethnic groups.

Noah and Ham.

Modern priests think that no one reads the Bible except them, and therefore they can refer to it and twist its plots as they please. (Although what a blessing there is ...)

Recently, one of them mentioned Ham, the son of Noah, who built the ark. Let me tell you this dramatic story and invite you to reflect on it.

Noah found special grace before God, and God revealed to him that he was going to make a flood on the earth. To escape the flood, Noah needed to build a ship, and for this purpose, God gave Noah the blueprints. In words. Noah did not thunder into a psychiatric hospital at all, moreover, he even built a ship with his sons. It took him over a hundred years to do it. Then the animals gathered on the ship ... In general, this part of the plot is covered in some detail by modern cinema. But we are not talking about that now. We are talking about post-Flood times. The Bible talks about them in a very crumpled way, which is strange. The description of the ship, meanwhile, is quite detailed, as if we want to recreate it.

What happened after the flood:

Noah, having drunk in zyuzyu, unconsciously fell and his shame was exposed. Seeing this, Ham laughed and told the brothers. The brothers, afraid to see the shame of their father, took some clothes and covered Noah with their backs. Noah, when he was able to speak, cursed Ham.

That's all the facts. I would define this biblical rudeness (not to be confused with the tram) as "ridiculing shame in response to swine behavior." Which seems to me quite logical and correct. But! Noah was Ham's father! And here lies the tragedy.

Please note that at the moment when all this happened, Ham was no longer a teenager at all to make fun of someone's genitals. Probably he was already a father himself, and maybe even a grandfather (and maybe a great-grandfather). In addition, Noah and Ham built a huge ship together, the construction was very complex and lengthy. They should have worked. In addition, it seems unlikely that a righteous person, to whom God gave the blueprints of the ship, grew up such a son who does not respect his father. Having plowed together at a construction site for 100 years, a stranger will become family, and besides construction, they also had a wonderful salvation on this ship! Yes, they were supposed to be best friends! And apparently they were. There were until Noah became addicted to wine. Apparently, after all, Noah's psyche suffered: he began to consider himself the Chosen One and became proud. Getting drunk, he scolded people for what the world stands, beat his chest and shouted: “Me! God has chosen me!"

Ham exhorted his father as best he could. He asked the brothers to influence him, but the brothers did not want to get involved and tried to dissuade him with their father's words: Him! The Lord has chosen him!

Everything was in vain: Noah sank down, having drunk, laying around anywhere, not really caring about his indecent appearance. Seeing no other opportunity to influence his father, Ham, in despair, seeing him once again drunk, went and said to the brothers: “Go, look at your chosen one! They fall on the road, muddy in a puddle!

The brothers didn't want to see what condition Noah was in. Noah's character became extremely bad. He could demand a report from them: “And did you see how I whittled you?” The brothers decided to cheat: "Let's cover him with something, and if he asks us, we will answer that we have not seen."

When Noah woke up, the brothers tried to talk to him, they say it’s worth drinking less ... But Noah quickly went on the counterattack, aroused by his own insults and humiliation against his sons, and in the end, hearing that no one saw anything except Ham, cursed him . And he blessed him by pouring wine into the glass.

This is such a sad story. Say lies? Try to explain differently.

And now extrapolate it to the present:

election - construction - salvation - alcohol - indecency - disgusting - Rudeness (not a tram).

Of course, you can cover it with Photoshop and say: we didn’t see anything. Yes, it's just painful...

This is for those who are interested in bible stories.
Ham ("hot") - a person mentioned in the Bible, survived the Flood, one of the three sons of Noah, brother of Japheth and Shem, the legendary progenitor of many peoples
Born 100 years before the Flood, from which he, along with his wife, father and brothers, escaped in the ark). Like all survivors, Ham set foot in the Ararat mountains and lived in the land of Shinar.
... And from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth (Gen. 11:9)
Shem, Ham and Japheth James Tissot

According to one version, apparently after a quarrel with his father, Ham settled in Egypt, since that is called the land of Ham in the Psalms. According to another version, God scattered the nations over the earth only after the Babylonian pandemonium.
According to the Bible, Ham behaved shamefully during the drunkenness of his father Noah. Firstly, he saw and told the brothers about the nakedness of his father, and secondly, he “did something on him.” Usually this place is interpreted as a mockery and disrespect for the father, which later became part of the content of the term rudeness

It should be pointed out that there is nothing to indicate that this passage is to be understood as a description of incest. "Seeing nudity" or "discovering nudity" is not necessarily related to the sexual realm.

For example: “And Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed about them; And he said to them, You are spies; you have come to spy out the nakedness of this land. They said to him: No, our lord; your servants have come to buy food; we are all children of one person; we are honest people; your servants have not been spies.
He said to them: No, you have come to look out for the nakedness of this land” (Gen.42:9-12) or “Do not go up the steps to My altar, lest your nakedness be revealed” (Ex.20:26).
Noah curses Ham. Gustave Dore

Noah himself reveals his nakedness (undresses), and not Ham reveals his nakedness. In the story of Ham, a different expression is used - ra'ah `erwah (when someone is exposed in defenseless form), while to describe the shame associated with sexual sin, the expression galah `erwah should have been used

It is enough to read this expression (“I saw nakedness”) in context to understand that we are talking simply about a naked father: “Now Shem and Japheth took a garment and, putting it on their shoulders, went back and covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned back, and they did not see the nakedness of their father.
In accordance with the ideas of the ancients, looking at the genitals of a naked father, Ham thereby took over his power, as if taking away his potency.
I.Ksenofontov. Noah curses Ham


If it was about incest, he would have nothing to brag to his brothers. It must also be borne in mind that in the Old Testament society and other ancient cultures, honoring parents was obligatory, and nudity was considered shameful.

For the sin of Ham, his son Canaan had to pay, whom Noah cursed, prophesying a slave existence for him:
Cursed be Canaan; he will be a servant of servants to his brothers (Gen. 9:25)
Indirect confirmation of the fact that the curse of Noah did not apply to all the descendants of Ham, but only to Canaan is the prophecy of Isaiah about Egypt. The Bible calls the Egyptians the descendants of Mizraim, the son of Ham.

According to the Bible, the sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Fut, and Canaan. Flavius ​​Josephus believes that the Ethiopians are hiding behind the name Cush, the Egyptians are Mizraim, the Libyans (Moors) are Fut, and Canaan is the pre-Jewish population of Judea.
The settlement of the descendants of Ham, according to the European medieval map

There are two stories about two sinners: one is constantly remembered in the right place and out of place, but the second is rarely remembered. At first glance, there is nothing in common between them, except that sin leads to serious consequences here and there - but isn't that what a good half of the Bible says? And if you look closely, they have so many intersections that one can hardly be correctly understood in isolation from the other ...

The first, known to all, is about Ham, the son of Noah, from the 9th chapter of Genesis. Noah was the first winegrower and winemaker, and one day, not calculating his strength during the tasting (after all, no one knew about the insidious properties of alcohol!), he ended up in his tent, sleeping soundly in the nude. I will emphasize especially: in my own tent, sleeping. Noah did not interfere with anyone, did not pester anyone, and all he needed was to sleep.

All this seemed very funny to his son Ham: he not only laughed at the shame of his father, but also invited the brothers Shem and Japhet to admire the spectacle. They did not want to, but, on the contrary, covered their father with clothes, and in such a way that they themselves would not inadvertently see his nakedness. For this, Noah promised a severe fate ... of the descendants of Ham, those who would come from his son Canaan. Note that Ham himself remained unpunished.

Some interpreters explain Noah's inconsistency with the complex attitude of ancient people to the tribal structure of society, where children have to deal with the sinful heritage of their fathers, while others explain the biblical author's desire from the very beginning to indicate the future fate of the Canaanites, who were replaced by the Israelites in the Holy Land. All this is true, and besides, what logic and consistency can be expected from Noah when he was in a state of severe hangover?

But the name Ham has become a household name. Today, this word is used as a curse in a variety of situations, but what did Ham originally do? He brought his father's private sin into public space and invited his brothers to laugh at him.

Another story is told at the beginning of 1 Kings, her main character- High Priest Eli. He was the head of the Israeli people, and in fact, its only leader at a time when there were no kings yet, and charismatic leaders-judges appeared only occasionally, on a special occasion (in fact, Eli was such a judge at that time). He himself was a completely pious person, as we can see from his conversation with Anna, the mother of the future prophet Samuel.

But his sons and, accordingly, heirs took a completely different path, as the Bible says, "they did not know the Lord and the duty of the priests in relation to the people." Yes, they were constantly in the sanctuary, in front of the Tabernacle, but mainly in order to select for themselves the best pieces of meat for the roast even before the sacrifice, and to debauchery with women next to the shrine.

And now these were not at all private sins, they were happening before the eyes of the people, they desecrated Holy place and the people told Elijah about them. Eli even reprimanded his sons, but ... nothing more. He did not remove them from the ministry, did not punish them, did not even try to check how they would behave after this reprimand. And they, of course, took up the old.

And then the Lord intervened. Through his mouth, He announced to Elijah that a severe punishment awaited his entire house: his sons would die one day during his lifetime, and their descendants would die young - and someone else, whom the Lord would choose, would become the head priest.

The death of both sons would be a terrible blow for any father (especially where no one expects anything good for himself after death, as in ancient Israel), but another one is added to this beat. The position of the high priest was inherited, and now the curse passes to all the offspring of Eli along with the position. Yes, they will remain in the same place - but they themselves will not be happy about this ...

Then the Lord repeated his rebuke through little boy Samuel, who was brought up at the sanctuary. Eli's answer is strangely passive: “He is the Lord; whatever pleases him, let him do.” There was still time for repentance and change, the Lord was in no hurry to fulfill the threat, but ... he seemed to have become stiff, this elder, he lives already as he has to, and not as he should, and, knowing about the terrible future, he does not try to prevent it. Words about the omnipotence of the Creator are just an excuse for one's own inertia.

And then another war with the Philistines began. The sons of Eli are accustomed to using their service at the sanctuary as an instrument in the search for wealth and pleasure - and in the same way they turn into an instrument, into a miracle weapon, main shrine Israelites, Ark of the Covenant. He brought them meat and love pleasures, now he must bring victory over enemies. The ark is delivered to the battlefield.

Everything ends with a military catastrophe: the Ark is captured, both sons of Elijah fell in battle. The high priest himself at this time is sitting at the gates of the sanctuary, waiting for the news ... "He was old and heavy," and "his eyes grew dim," the story tells us, and this is not only about his health - he became heavy and blind, first of all mentally, when he refused see the unpleasant, refused to do anything for the sake of its correction. He was told of a prophecy that had come true, that Israel had suffered an unprecedented shame - the loss of the main one - and both of his sons, involved in this shame, were dead. Then Eli fell dead in shock.

Then everything turned out in the most unexpected way: the Philistines were soon forced to return the Ark, and the prophet Samuel became the head of the Israeli people, the same one who, as a boy, predicted the fall of the house of Elijah. Strictly speaking, he never became a high priest, and he had no right to do so. But a formal position even in Old Testament did not always coincide with the essence of the ministry, and the history of the house of Elijah is the best example of this.

The difference between the sin of his sons and the trouble that Noah found himself in is quite obvious. They indulged in vice not in their dwelling, for behind closed doors- they did it openly, and in a holy place. Not a word of reproach was said against those who reported such behavior to their father - in fact, they had to do this in order to stop the disgrace. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.

And here's something else interesting ... Both the sons themselves and Eli were to blame. But the Lord spoke only to him. What's the use of talking to impudent people who have forgotten to think about God? Therefore, both denunciations were addressed to a truly believing person, to their father. But faith alone, it turns out, is not enough, you still need to find the determination and courage to resist vice even when it nestles in your own house ...

On the pages of the Bible you can find many instructive and relevant examples - it is only important not to take them out of context, not to be limited only to those that are convenient to quote in this case. This is a multifaceted, but a single narrative, and it should be considered as it should be - as a whole, in the relationship of different stories, images and characters. And then much is seen more clearly.