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 nakednessâ€Â.
In Christ,
Fred Williams