What’s Left Out
He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Genesis 9:21-22 NASB
Uncovered himself – A story within a story. What’s really happening in this cryptic account? First, the obvious. Noah naked in his own tent, drunk or not, doesn’t seem particularly risqué. Ham witnessing his father naked can hardly be grounds for the subsequent curse by Noah. There must be something more, not explicitly stated.
Second, in spite of the efforts of some commentators to suggest that Ham engages in a homosexual act, the arguments are quite weak. Davidson’s analysis of the Hebraic expression ra’a ‘erwat (“to see the nakedness of”) vitiates the argument for homosexuality. Similarly, arguments that suggest this is filial disrespect seem to falter over the object of Noah’s curse which is not Ham but rather Ham’s offspring. Nevertheless, Davidson and others make a case that filial disrespect is associated with the subsequent curse as Noah implies that Ham will be treated disrespectfully by his son just as Ham disrespected his father. But in my view, the curse is much too strong to be the consequence of merely seeing the father naked. Davidson argues that in a culture where filial loyalty and decorum were paramount, Ham’s action may have been enough breach of social protocol to elicit such a reprisal. However, even Davidson notes that ra’a ‘erwat has links to Leviticus 20 and “the narrator wishes the reader to understand that Ham’s action did in fact have illicit sexual overtones.”[1] Davidson concludes that this is the continuation of the trait toward the unclean, drawing a link to Genesis 8:21. If this is in fact a hint toward homosexual actions, it demonstrates that while the flood erased the consequences of wickedness, it did not erase the propensity toward wickedness.
While I grant Davidson’s insight, I still think that the key to understanding the hidden story is to be found in the curse, not the recording of the events. Quite typically, Hebrew only hints at explicit sexual behavior (cf. Song of Songs). But the curse is quite specific. It is the grandson who is the object of Noah’s wrath. Why? If Ham had violated Noah sexually, why curse Ham’s yet-to-be-born son? I suggest that in spite of Davidson’s objection (regarding the missing part of the construct using laqah)[2] the curse makes sense if Canaan, the son of Ham, is the product of incest between Ham and Noah’s wife. While Noah lay drunk, Ham asserted his desire to overthrow the patriarch by bedding his wife. The resulting pregnancy is cursed by Noah because it represents rebellion and dissolution of the righteous line. It is a power struggle, not a sexual indulgence. The language is reminiscent of both Reuben and the Levitical prohibitions.
Of course, there are still problems. Why do the other sons believe that covering their father provides any resolution? Is that what they really did? How does the life of Canaan reflect such a curse, if in fact it actually does? Why would the narrator even include such a story and leave it with so many loose ends? Perhaps we are stuck with Hebrew aversion to plain meanings when it comes to sex. Perhaps the oral tradition was a bit more explicit or the original audience knew what was meant and didn’t have to have the story further elaborated. In the end maybe it’s just speculation. It wouldn’t be the first time we run up against the wall in Hebrew—and it certainly won’t be the last.
Topical Index: Ham, homosexuality, Canaan, curse, ra’a ‘erwat, see the nakedness, Genesis 9:21-22
[1] Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, p. 145.
[2] Ibid., p. 143
My intuition regarding this episode is this. Noah had been a careful practitioner of righteousness who had required a similar high level of behaviour in his sons. The preacher’s son syndrome? Ham had resented having to mind his p’s and q’s for his father’s sake and had been perhaps even secretly hungering for a chance to break free of those moral constraints.
When Ham saw this naked drunkenness, he seized upon his father’s accidental lapse in self-control as justification for himself to no longer be so particular in his standards. If it’s OK for dad, it should be OK for me. He wanted to convince his brothers also to cast off their traditionally high moral code. Safety in numbers, eh? The brothers were not persuaded by Ham that their father’s unseemly state justified their also abandoning righteousness and moving toward licentiousness.
When Noah found out the corruption Ham had sought to cause on the basis of his unfortunate behavioural lapse, he was incensed, and elevated the righteous sons above the unrighteous one by imposing upon Canaan (and the race springing from him) a servant status in respect to the descendants of Japheth and Shem.
God bless.
Paul
My personal favorite speculation on this subject has to do with trusting his son’s to do the right thing after the lessons they just recently learned what with having endured the flood and all. The elements of wine and cloaks and betrayal. You see all of them in the “last supper” When Yeshua removes his own garment and takes on the posture of a servant and then takes covers himself again. And then there is that refusal to drink the fruit of the vine until he drinks it new in the new kingdom. And then you consider the blessings that Noah spoke over his son’s there is the element of redemption in it for Caanan. He may be “servant of all” but he’s “in the tent”! Take on that paradigm for a few minutes. Selah
I appreciate the application, but obviously the storywriter of this account did not have Yeshua’s action in mind. We need to make sense of the story in its own context before we can create a midrash.
Yes he did
Sorry what I mean was of course we need to see it in that way.
I support the explanation that Noach’s wife was involved (in the tent). Or at least one of Noach’s wives.
Lev.18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am YHWH. 7 The nakedness of your father, and the nakedness of your mother, shall you not uncover: she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of your father’s wife shall you not uncover: it is your father’s nakedness.
Kush’s son Nimrod was the first “Anti-Christ”. In his kingdom originated the false religion which imitated and tried to parallel the Abrahamitic faith.
Gen.10:8 And Kush begot Nimrod [=let us rebel]; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before YHWH, wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before YHWH. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Bavel,…
The servantship may have been rebelled against by Nimrod.
In the book of Jasher, the explanation is interesting (I am paraphrasing): Ham stole from Noach his cloak, which he inherited from Adam, which was made for Adam by YHWH to cover him in The Garden. This cloak Ham gave to his son Kush, who passed it on to Nimrod. By the power of this garment, Nimrod became a mighty king. I think the story went on to where Esau killed Nimrod and took the “garment” which then gave him special powers.
Pieter, thank you for the connection between Lev. 18:6,7 and this identical expression found here. Best supporting verse to justify the resulting curse! It fits like a hand in glove! Thank you, Skip! Also can explain the descendants of Ham and Cush, the Egyptians, and their practice of strict intermarriage between ‘equals’. Of course, that would exclude royalty from marriage with any but siblings, nieces, etc. They thought nothing of forcing Hatshepsut to marry her inlaw. Children in the land of Egypt were rare and treasured by the time of Israel… Wonder why?! One of the first things to get lost in line breeding, I found in the animal world, is fertility. No wonder the Egyptians were jealous and afraid of the Israelites, who were forbidden to line breed, and therefore were procreating like rabbits! Or, rather, like obedient worshippers. Incest is generational, for sure, and I have personally seen it wipe out many a line. Now, back to Shem and Japheth. If their father’s ‘nakedness’ involved his wife, then walking backwards and throwing something over this scene would make sense, as they could have been refusing to look at their father’s WIFE in her humiliation. Hmmm
Exactly!
More questions. The BANE of critical thinking. I agree with you, the curse reveals more of the action then the narrative.
I need a book of Jasher, but then, i have Enoch and only have parts of it.
Try the translation of Dr James Trimm from lulu.com.
Yeah! This is the first connection I ever made in my very first Torah study. I’ve endured the “dog looking at a new bowl” Stink eye ever since from every linguist I know. Thank you Skip!
Searching the topic online I found this, which may help a little more but still leaves Ham’s exact involvement unclear.
“But, why is Canaan named so predominantly in this story (more than any other character) and why was Canaan cursed for something that Ham did, and how could Ham be called Noah’s “youngest son,” when he was actually the second-born of three sons? (See the customary birth order of “Shem, Ham, and Japheth” (Gen 5:32, 6:10, 7:13, 9:18, 10:1; 1 Chron 1:4).
“youngest son” in most modern translations means literally “his son/grandson, the little [one]” (beno haqqatan) – suggesting “that Canaan did something not recorded which was worthy of cursing…”3 In fact, ben (Strong #1121) can mean “son, grandson, cousin, descendent, [even] daughter.”4 No writer on this passage, to my knowledge, has noted Gen 31:27-28, where Laban rebukes Jacob, saying, “Why did you flee secretly and … not permit me to kiss my sons [bene] … farewell?” – a clear reference to Laban’s grandsons (Jacob’s sons); and, in fact, bene is translated as “grandchildren” in 31:55 in the NRSV, NIV and CEV. In the Noah story right from the start Canaan appears as a presence in and a part of the story, named 5 times throughout Gen 9:18-27, more than Ham (3 times) and even Noah (4 times). Also, the “little” or “young” one would hardly apply to Ham, since Noah was 600 years old when the Flood came (7:6, 9:28-29) and one would expect that his sons were up in years, as well. At least we know that Noah’s three sons were all married when they entered the Ark (7:13) and that, before Canaan, Ham had begotten three other sons (10:6). Thus, a number of scholars have attributed the main insult here to Canaan.”
There are so many Hebrew euphemisms — I wonder if “they went backward and covered the nakedness of their father, their faces backward. And they did not see the nakedness of their father,” has anything to do with Shem and Japheth “walking backward”, (looking to the future?), and helping their mother to recover from rape and then attempting to mitigate any future implications of such an event for the sake of Noah and the family. Obviously, whatever the case, Noah came to know the truth. Just speculating — I don’t have any research for this.
What is most refreshing about this discussion is that we can say we’re not really sure what this particular scripture means. I’ve had plenty of religious associates who think they have to be able to state with certainty what any given Bible verse means…or else their faith is called into question. This behavior, of course, can be an impediment to further learning.
Faith in the Bible is not the same as faith in the Lord, is it?
But aren’t they supposed to be?
I don’t think so. Abraham had faith in the Lord and never had a Bible. Many who have the Bible don’t really have faith in the Lord. We have faith in a person, not in a message. The only reason we believe the message is because of the integrity of the one who sent it, but if for some reason some of the message is scrambled, that does not mean we no longer trust the person who sent the message. Remember when we investigated the difference between the WORD of God and all the things written in Scripture about encounters with the person and the words?
Thank you. It is hard to become willing to look at the foundations of our trust: why we think, say and do what we do. And we must. BUT, like I think I have seen you say, we have to have a Standard to measure against. That Standard is what has been revealed to us. I have to trust the Standard itself, even if so many of the ways it has come to us have to be evaluated carefully. I trust that I am not left without a reliable Revelation of Him. I don’t think He would tolerate that. I think that the Truth has always been manifest to those who will seek and ask because His Word promises that, among many other things. I trust those promises; I trust that He made real promises, and I trust that He keeps them. I can’t speak for Abraham, but what I understand is that people used to be able to remember much better than we do. It was expected that a book was something that you memorized, and obviously there were oral renditions of the Text long before Moses wrote it, because the world has always had a Standard. How do I know that? Because there were always people keeping it. Yes, they remembered and experienced an Encounter; but then, so do I. When I read my Bible, I pray to have the Holy Spirit illumine it for me. I think He is just as capable of interpreting and applying His Word to my life as He was in giving it in the first place. I guess you might say that I am putting my trust in an encounter; a relationship, but then, the chief Way I have been given to Encounter Him is that Word.
My simple minded version of the possibilities settles my questions and lets me get on with what’s next. Regardless of what year it was – these were boys..who had just been through a nightmare with strict guidelines from the father. Ham was most likely the strong willed child of the three…with more than a little sarcasm stirred in for good measure. In this case he allowed his sarcasm free reign instead of using wisdom, common sense and maintaining basic respect for his father. Keirsey would probably find him an Artisan. It was a joke-“You won’t believe it!! He looks ridiculous!!” When Noack awoke and found out what happened it was pretty clear what kind of man Ham had become…one without basic integrity, well doing or the wisdom to deal with life’s challenges with self respect or respect for others-or maybe just unable to pass up a good laugh. (This does not define all Artisans-just this one.) This kind of man would never be able to serve in life in a position of authority…it would be better if he were positioned within boundaries – not given the freedom of an entrepreneur….and so it was.
Unfortunately, the Hebrew text does not elaborate so if we are going to do exegesis, and not write plays, we will have to stick with what the text says, not what a screenwriter might add. Your account is possible, but there is nothing in the text that allows us to make all of these assumptions.
Wow….well…I did say “my simple minded version”. I disagree that there is nothing in the text which allows these assumptions….sorry. The story itself allows for a pretty clear picture of Ham’s disrespect for his father…and God is pretty clear about how He feels about that. The generations that followed reveal how the heart in Ham progressed with the generations- more and more lacking respect for God. Had the following generations been used as door mats and became more and more a people who were easily intimidated-I would consider that Ham was so ashamed and embarrassed at seeing his father that he left shamed and left it to his brothers to take care of it. But that wasn’t the case with the generations following Ham. People are people – have always been and will always be. Words can get lost, misplaced or confused – but people have a heart in them that, regardless of culture, have the same feelings…sometimes brought on by abuse and injustice – the unrelenting efforts of the enemy-some unbelievably, sail smoothly. What controls a generation will carry into the next…but it doesn’t have to stay like that. There is a Blood that removes the curse. I have followed it in my own family generationally and have friends who have done the same thing. Usually, the thing we hate the most in one of our parents is the very thing that strangles the life out of us..so we make a little “kink” in the bondage and make it our own…”There-that’ll show ’em.” And on it goes. Until we really look and SEE those things that bound the previous generations and purposefully, intentionally make a break with that thing – refusing to allow it to use us anymore – seeing it as an enemy that does not want to let go BUT MUST….because the Blood of God has covered me and separated me from it’s power….I will not only die under it’s power shaming me to the end…I will pass it to my children. I know someone-close to me-who, suffering…evil abuse as a child, has made a decision to remain a victim…life is not only fruitless it is pitiful. There is freedom-God saw to that….why so many fight it remains a mystery to me. Earth is a battlefield – God has callings, giftings, and blessings to grow stronger as the bloodline progresses..to be a powerful testimony of His Love…the enemy introduces curses in whispers and confusion that he hopes will live and kill….but he is defeated-we just have to choose to fight.
“..the curse makes sense if Canaan, the son of Ham, is the product of incest between Ham and Noah’s wife.” It certainly does.
” It is a power struggle,” I have witnessed that between a son and his father with total disrespect, disobedience and rebellion to Torah principles to honour ones’ parents.
“.. the flood erased the consequences of wickedness, it did not erase the propensity toward wickedness.” The inclination to do evil (not honouring their parent/s, but treating them with contempt) still abound, even in the ones “following” Torah. Perhaps it is this contempt that brought forth Canaan.
“..that filial disrespect is associated with the subsequent curse as Noah implies that Ham will be treated disrespectfully by his son just as Ham disrespected his father.” What goes forth comes around- a serious matter to consider.