63 replies to this topic

[Fred Williams]

A skeptic once wrote in my guest book ridiculing this passage in the Bible:

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
(Genesis 9:20-25)
The skeptic interpreted this as follows:

And of course there's Noah and his kin, who, of all the human race, deserved to survive. That would be the same Noah whose first crop after the Flood was wine grapes. In celebration of all the blessings bestowed upon him, he got drunk as a skunk and lay around naked. Then when his thoughtful son Ham tried to help him out by getting help to cover his [behind], Noah cursed him and his descendants forever (and God, apparently, backed up that curse (and biblical literalists have used that as a justification for slavery and segregation of blacks {whom they imagine to be "Hamites"}, among other atrocities]). Was that mean drunk the best of the human race that God could come up with?

While this interpretation more than anything else reveals the bias of the skeptic , it is a passage of scripture that does seem strange. But there is a piece to this puzzle that unlocks the verses and then it becomes crystal clear why Ham was cursed. Consider this verse from Leviticus:

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 20:11)

Ham was not cursed for covering a naked Noah, he was cursed for sleeping with Noah’s wife (his mom)! The Bible explains it in a polite fashion by describing this vile act as “uncovering Noah’s nakedness”.

In Christ,
Fred Williams

[chance]

Seems to me that Ham is cursed for what he did not do, i.e cover up his father, instead he just tells his brothers about the situation and they fix the problem. Cursed for his indifference and/or laziness?

[Fred Williams]

Seems to me that Ham is cursed for what he did not do, i.e cover up his father, instead he just tells his brothers about the situation and they fix the problem.   Cursed for his indifference and/or laziness?

Again, let's look at a well-established Hebrew figure of speech:

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 20:11)

‘If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness. … ‘If a man takes his brother's wife… He has uncovered his brother's nakedness.’ (Lev 20:20?21)

Also

‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness’ (Lev 18:8).

This figure of speech is used on other places including Ezekiel:

In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity. (Ezek 22:10)

I think a strong and reasonable case can be made from this Hebrew figure of speech, that Ham slept with his mother and thus why Noah cursed him as a statement of his wickedness. In the words of Pastor Bob Enyart:

“Canaan’s true story shows the tragic reality of a child being set up to fail by the wickedness of his father. Thus Noah cursed Canaan as a statement of that reality, not as a hex or evil spell, but as a warning to others against following in Ham’s wicked ways. So incest set the background for centuries of conflict between Noah’s Hamitic descendents, especially those through Canaan, against the descendants of Shem, the Semites, especially the Jews, to whom God promised the land of the Canaanites.”

[Fred Williams]

Yes. But what is a figure of speech in one place can be a simple statement of fact in another.

True, but if this figure of speech was used somewhere where the context clearly wasn’t S@xual sin, I would think the connection I’m proposing would be much more debatable. I did another word-search, and everywhere this expression is used the context is clearly a S@xual sin, except for two places: 1) the account we are talking about, Genesis 9, and 2) Habakkuk 2:15. Both of these accounts make much more sense if a S@xual sin is involved, which seems compelling to me that the figure of speech also applies in these passages. As you said, it seems very unlikely that this was just a simple case of seeing Noah naked.

It may be that Ham slept with his fathers wife (but incest was not yet banned by God, and He does not punish where there is no crime {Romans 5:13}).

While it is true incest was not banned yet (and in fact was required in the first several generations to fulfill God’s request to be fruitful and multiply!), adultery very likely was banned, and was the sin Ham committed (See Gen 39 for an example where adultery was known by Joseph to be a sin, before the Levitical Law was given). We also know from Romans 2 that the law was written on their hearts – what specifically were these “laws” would be debatable, but in the least one would think it includes adultery and honoring parents.

What, exactly, he did to provoke the curse is interesting guess work.

I think in this case it’s more than guess work, but would also agree it is something I can’t be dogmatic about. But it is much more supportable than many speculations we like to make, such as guessing when Satan’s fall occurred (an interesting topic in itself).

Fred

[Geezer]

I think in this case it’s more than guess work, but would also agree it is something I can’t be dogmatic about. But it is much more supportable than many speculations we like to make, such as guessing when Satan’s fall occurred (an interesting topic in itself).

As a Jew, I have to agree with Fred on this one. It is almost certain Ham slept with his mother or Noah himself to"uncover his father's nakedness". He then compounded the whole thing by his attitude afterward.
It might even be argued this was the 1st sin since the flood and such a major one - G-d could not have been pleased.

note - edited to get quote box right.

[chance]

Again, let's look at a well-established Hebrew figure of speech: 

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 20:11)

‘If a man lies with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered his uncle's nakedness.  …  ‘If a man takes his brother's wife…  He has uncovered his brother's nakedness.’  (Lev 20:20?21)

Also

‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness’ (Lev 18:8).

This figure of speech is used on other places including Ezekiel:

In you men uncover their fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity.  (Ezek 22:10)

I think a strong and reasonable case can be made from this Hebrew figure of speech, that Ham slept with his mother and thus why Noah cursed him as a statement of his wickedness. In the words of Pastor Bob Enyart:

“Canaan’s true story shows the tragic reality of a child being set up to fail by the wickedness of his father.  Thus Noah cursed Canaan as a statement of that reality, not as a hex or evil spell, but as a warning to others against following in Ham’s wicked ways.  So incest set the background for centuries of conflict between Noah’s Hamitic descendents, especially those through Canaan, against the descendants of Shem, the Semites, especially the Jews, to whom God promised the land of the Canaanites.”

That’s fascinating, i.e. that “uncovering nakedness = sleeping around”, it can certainly help to understand a text in a wholly different context.
But what then of Ham’s brothers? They covered Noah up! Obviously they can’t undo what Ham has done, so what action are they performing to undo Hams transgression, or ease Noah’s anger?

[Geezer]

But what then of Ham’s brothers? They covered Noah up! Obviously they can’t undo what Ham has done, so what action are they performing to undo Hams transgression, or ease Noah’s anger?

When Ham entered the tent, which in itself may have been a violation if he did not receive an answer to his clap (not sure of this since it is right after the flood), if he saw his father naked, he should have averted his eyes and did as Shem and Japeth and covered him.

Aside:
Here is a real mystery. The english translation of Shem is "name". Why would Noah name his son name?
I can see the Abbott & Costello routine now:
"What is your name"?
"Name".
"Right - what is it?"
"Name"!
"Yes - I want to know"!
"It is Name you bloody..."

Well, you get it.

[Ray Martinez]

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ (Leviticus 20:11)

FW: Ham was not cursed for covering a naked Noah, he was cursed for sleeping with Noah’s wife (his mom)! The Bible explains it in a polite fashion by describing this vile act as “uncovering Noah’s nakedness”.

Hi Fred:

I never matched the above verse with the act of Ham. It certainly gives strong support that Ham's sin is as the verse says.

But the fact that Japheth and Shem covered Noah and did not look seems to disprove the evidence above ?

Admin3 in post #2 makes what I feel is the best grave sin of Ham: disrespect of God's anointed.

We know Elisha cursed 42 children in the heat of an insult towards Him and God honored it.

I have always been taught that we must first assume the Bible/God means what He says.

IOW, Ham and his descendants were cursed for exactly what the text says: Gossipping about Noah.

We know there is a ton of Bible against gossipping, whiSSSpering, etc.etc.

goSSipping/whiSSpering/ = pSSt = SSerpent = SSatan.

RM

[Geezer]

IOW, Ham and his descendants were cursed for exactly what the text says: Gossipping about Noah.

Could you provide the verse where it says "gossiping" please.
Thanks very much.

[Ray Martinez]

Could you provide the verse where it says "gossiping" please.
Thanks very much.

Genesis 9:22 says Ham told Shem and Japheth = gossip.

He should of kept it a secret and did what his brothers ended up doing.

BTW, where in the Bible do we find God coming down on Noah for getting drunk and ending up naked ?

God got mad at the gossip.

The point I believe is that while getting drunk and naked is obviously a sin it didn't even warrant a rebuke by God. It was the gossip that made Him angry.

Proverbs 6:16-19

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Notice the very last thing that God hates: "sowing discord among brethern." = gossip.

I can't find getting drunk and naked on the list but they are sins as can be deduced from many other places in Scripture.


RM

[Geezer]

Hi Ray - Welcome by the way,
I do not equate Proverbs with the weight I do the rest of the OT. They are...well, proverbs.
Secondly, I agree gossip is bad, but not the reason for the curse on Ham. The uncovering refers to a specific act - not gossip.
We, of course, do not know for sure so I am not going into a debate over this. :>)

I can't find getting drunk and naked on the list but they are sins as can be deduced from many other places in Scripture.

Drinking of the vine is not forbidden or a sin. Getting drunk and naked in the privacy of your own tent is definitely not a sin.

Your tag says you are a Christian. I have recently been reading the Gospels. Did not your Jesus perform a miracle where the best wine was served? And this after all of the other had already been drunk. Seems Jesus had nothing against a little wine and even occasional tipsiness?

Shalom Shabot

[Geezer]

The Scripture gives thanks to God for "the wine that gladdens men's hearts". What is most definitely forbidden is drunkeness as a lifestyle. The example mentioned, the wedding feast at Cana is an excellent example. Who imagines that after days of feasting no one was loaded? Even so, Jesus produced between 120 and 150 gallons of heavenly quality wine so the party could continue. So, an ocassional party is one thing, but habitual drunkenness another.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Drunkness should not be a lifestyle or even somethinf that happens too often. Special occasions only.
My .02

Note:
edited for spelling mistake

[chance]

Going back to my childhood I recall being told that drinking wine from an urban environment was safer than the water in those days, (killed the bacteria). In addition the ‘drinking’ wine (as opposed to the ‘party’ wine) was not particularly strong, so there would not be any social stigma with consuming what by today’s standards would be a high wine diet. Not sure if this is an urban legend or not, anyone have any facts about the above?