I particularly like investigating difficult passages, and our passage this time is particularly difficult. The debate centres around the nature of Ham's sin and why Canaan, Ham’s 4th son, was cursed instead of Ham.
Let’s read the text and see what we can discover through analysis.
Genesis 9:20–27 (NRSV) — 20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” 26 He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. 27 May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.”
Key Hermeneutical Points of Interpretation
In particularly difficult-to-understand passages, and this one certainly falls in that category, we must be careful to note several points.
1. We must notice simple repetition of words or phrases. Here we have two clear candidates, covering or uncovering nakedness and cursing.
2. Look for technical words or phrases. That is, key words or phrases that are freighted with technical meaning to the original hearers. For example, “except for unfaithfulness” (porneia) in Matthew’s account of the debate on divorce in Matthew 5 & 19.
3. Storyline repetition elsewhere in Scripture. For example, right at the beginning of Scripture we have a repetition of the creation story, and they are quite different.
Three main explanations of Noah’s Nakedness:
1. Voyeurism
2. Castration
3. Ham sexually abused Noah
1) Voyeuirism
On first reading, it appears to be a straightforward case of voyeurism, except for a few annoying anomalies.
The main anomaly is that a voyeuristic explanation lacks justification for the cursing of Canaan. The poor guy seems to have nothing to do with the actions of his father. If Ham simply saw his father naked, the punishment is way over the top and directed at the wrong person, Ham’s 4th son. If this sin were about voyeurism, Canaan can have no connection to the sin, because he wasn’t yet born. And is Noah so insecure about his nakedness that he is prepared to curse a grandson for the remainder of his life over it?
There doesn’t appear to be any ancient taboo against seeing a parent naked, that we know of. Looking at his naked body may be uncomfortable for both parties, but it is not such a sin as to call down a curse, let alone on Ham’s 4th son.
Many theologians, however, including Luther and Calvin, take this view. Of course, the explanation does emphasize the need to respect parents and tells us about the serious consequences of drunkenness, but is the story simply about voyeurism? If it is about voyeurism, then why is Canaan in the picture? Voyeurism as an explanation falls rather short of any rational explanation.
2) Castration
This interpretation suggests that Ham did something more than just mocking his father. Some argue that Ham’s sin was something more deeply connected with sexuality, and this leads to two other explanations, detailed in the Babylonian Talmud (a commentary on the OT), suggesting Ham sexually abused or perhaps castrated Noah.
Verse 24 alludes to some sexual violation committed by Ham against his father because the text says Noah “knew what his younger son had done to him.” It appears something was done to Noah by Ham, rather than simply looking at his naked body, hardly a heinous sin then or now. The castration explanation suggests that Noah, who had three sons, curses Ham’s 4th son because Ham’s castrating of Noah precluded him from having a 4th son.
One of the problems with this view is that Noah had heaps of time and opportunity to have a fourth son, since he was born 100 years before the flood, and then had some years after the flood, which offered him plenty of opportunity to try for another son. Nothing in the text alludes to castration, and again, the curse on Canaan has no adequate connection to this act.
3) Paternal Incest - Homosexual Abuse
This view suggests that because ‘saw the nakedness’ is an idiom for sex, that Ham must have sexually abused Noah. The story shows the extreme piousness of Shem and Japheth, who did not even want to look upon their naked father, in contrast to Ham’s extreme debasement.
However, like the previous two explanations, this one does not explain the cursing of Canaan in any way.
But there is another explanation:
4) Maternal Incest Explanation
This second incest explanation argues that Ham committed maternal rape to usurp Noah's authority and that Canaan is the offspring of that rape.
We should notice that the author twice mentions that Ham is the father of Canaan (9:18, 22), which gives this fact heightened significance and perhaps ties Canaan to Ham’s sin in some manner. Otherwise, why would Canaan, out of all 4 children of Ham, be cursed? Noah mentions Canaan three times as the one who receives the curse (9:25, 26, 27). Repetition is a powerful clue in Hebrew storytelling. You have to pay attention to this repetition.
An Idiom for Sexual Intercourse
When we compare scriptures, we find that the phrase 'uncovering nakedness' is an idiom for sexual intercourse, and we will look at several texts to demonstrate this.
Leviticus 18:6–14 (NRSV) — 6 None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt.
This passage is very clear that you shall not have sexual relations with a close relative. Today we know genetic reasons why this is not a good idea. I don’t know if the ancients understood much about genetics, but I suspect they understood the consequences by experience.
Notice verses 7 and 14 in particular, both suggesting that uncovering the nakedness of your father is approaching your mother for sexual relations, and uncovering the nakedness of your father’s brother is approaching his wife sexually. A woman’s nakedness is consistently described as her husband’s nakedness in scripture (Lev. 18:14, 16; 20:11, 21; Deut. 27:20).
This understanding illuminates two pieces of the puzzle the earlier understandings did not: why Canaan is cursed and why Ham is repeatedly identified as the father of Canaan.
We use very similar euphemisms to describe sexual intercourse. We say so-and-so ‘slept’ with a woman. Nothing wrong with sleeping with a woman…if nothing sexual happens between you. We could say he had sexual intercourse with her, but it is more delicate to say, he slept with her.
Instead of coming out in a blunt description and condemnation of incest, the writer puts it in euphemistic terms. Look at God’s condemnation of Israel in Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 16:25 (NRSV) — 25 ...at the head of every street you built your lofty place and prostituted your beauty, offering yourself to every passer-by, and multiplying your whoring. …35 Therefore, O whore, hear the word of the Lord: 36 Thus says the Lord God, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whoring with your lovers, and because of all your abominable idols…
It is quite clear that uncovering nakedness is equivalent to unlawful sexual acts. But how does uncovering Noah’s nakedness equate to raping Noah’s wife, who was also possibly Ham’s mother? We have to say Noah’s wife rather than Ham’s mother because we are not sure if it is Ham’s mother or a second wife of Noah, which is also quite possible.
In ancient times your wife was your charge, your responsibility. You were her protector. If another man approached her sexually, to sleep with her, it was a direct attack on you as the head of the house. He may as well have raped you. That was how it was seen. I don’t think this way of looking at adultery has changed materially over the centuries.
If you have uncovered your mother’s nakedness, that is, you have slept with her, that is, you have had sexual relations with her – you have uncovered your father’s nakedness. And vice versa. You have defiled them both, and as we shall see, you have challenged the hierarchical position of your father in society.
Leviticus 18:8 (NRSV) — 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father.
Look how explicitly the NIV puts Leviticus 18:7.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. (NIV)
Most other versions have ‘uncover the nakedness’ here and elsewhere.
As if it were not clear enough that uncovering nakedness refers to having sexual relations with a woman, let's look at Leviticus 18 again.
Leviticus 18:9–19 (NRSV) — 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. 10 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. 13 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. 14 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is depravity. 18 And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive. 19 You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
Notice that every time the euphemism ‘uncover the nakedness’ is used, it is used in relation to a woman. If you read this passage in another translation, they will try to interpret the euphemism, uncover the nakedness, and say straight out that he had sexual relations with. But notice verses 22 & 23.
Leviticus 18:22–23 (NRSV) — 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. 23 You shall not have sexual relations with [lie with] any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.
‘Uncovering nakedness’ always refers to women. If it is talking about homosexuality, it is not put in these terms. Instead, it says ‘lie with’ and is described as perversion. Different Hebrew terms are used here. One is sexual relations with a woman, which is a natural act, and in marriage a lawful act, but to lie with a man or an animal is perversion.
So, now we can clearly say that when Ham ‘uncovered the nakedness’ of his father, he was actually raping his father’s wife. This is clearly maternal incest in this instance. In some cases it may not be his mother, but still his father’s wife.
The Cursing of Canaan
Genesis 9:24–25 (NRSV) — 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
So when Noah sobers up and realises that Ham has slept with his wife, he curses the offspring of this relationship, Canaan.
The same is true of the offspring of another illicit relationship, the offspring of Lot’s daughters after they slept with their drunken father. Gen. 19:30-38. Here is the third hermeneutical point we listed previously, parallel storyline. Both instances have drunken episodes and incest involved, and each of these nations were a thorn in Israel’s side all through its history. Here, both the Moabites and the Ammonites are cursed. But why would Ham, in his right mind, want to sleep with his mother?
Usurping Paternal Power
There is more to this story than a sexual sin. Look at,
Genesis 9:22 (NRSV) — 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
Why would he tell his two brothers about this? Well, he didn’t just confess to this sin, he bragged about it. He is attempting to usurp the patriarchal power of Noah as the head of the family, and the head of all humanity at this point. Look at another storyline parallel.
Genesis 35:22 (NRSV) — 22 While Israel lived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it.
You see, Reuben was not wanting to keep this sin under the covers, he wanted all Israel to hear about it because he is attempting to usurp his father's authority. And Jacob curses him.
Genesis 49:3–4 (NRSV) — 3 Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might and the first fruits of my vigor, excelling in rank and excelling in power. 4 Unstable as water, you shall no longer excel because you went up onto your father’s bed; then you defiled it—you went up onto my couch!
Notice firstly the three different euphemisms here, you went up onto your father’s bed, you defiled it, and you went up onto my couch. The next instance is very well known.
2 Samuel 15:13–16 (NRSV) — 13 A messenger came to David, saying, “The hearts of the Israelites have gone after Absalom.” 14 Then David said to all his officials who were with him at Jerusalem, “Get up! Let us flee, or there will be no escape for us from Absalom. …16 So the king left, followed by all his household, except ten concubines whom he left behind to look after the house.
2 Samuel 16:20–23 (NRSV) — 20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your counsel; what shall we do?” 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, the ones he has left to look after the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23 Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God; so all the counsel of Ahithophel was esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
In ancient times, to ‘go in to’ – another euphemism for sexual intercourse – a leader’s wives or concubines, was to usurp their power and position. Absalom was making a powerful political statement about his intention to take over the kingdom from his father, David.
This is what Ham was trying to do, but it back-fired, as it did in the case of Absalom later. Ham was the third son, so he was not in line to inherit the bulk of Noah’s inheritance and power. That was the prerogative of the firstborn son in ancient times, in this case, Shem. So Ham was trying to short-circuit the process by challenging his father’s position while he was still alive. That’s why Ham was keen to brag about his low act to his brothers.
Another Piece to the Puzzle
There is another small piece to this puzzle: some scholars see that when the text reads in most translations of Genesis 9:21 that Noah ‘uncovered himself in his tent’, it should be translated as her tent, meaning Noah’s wife’s tent. The evidence is that the word for tent (‘ohel’) here has a third feminine singular prefix attached, indicating it should read her tent. You can see the same thing in Genesis 24:67 when Isaac brings Rebekah into his mother’s tent to consummate his marriage with Rebekah. The syntax is not a main point here, simply an additional piece of evidence to weight the incest explanation.
Summary of the 2nd Incest Explanation[1]
John Bergsma and Scott Hahn summarise the scenario as follows: Noah becomes drunk and enters his wife’s tent in preparation for intercourse but fails to perform because he falls asleep or is too drunk. Ham follows him into her tent and engages in sexual relations with his father’s wife. He then goes out and brags about this to his brothers in order to claim his father’s familial power. Shem and Japheth act in figurative deference by returning the familial “garment” to their humiliated father. Noah subsequently curses the offspring of this illicit act.
In my view, Noah is quite likely infertile and unable to produce any more children. He has had plenty of time and opportunity to produce more children but has not. Without effective contraception, it would be difficult to avoid a ‘slip-up’ in one hundred years. This is why Shem, Japheth, and Noah himself are sure that Ham is the father of Canaan.
Property Power and Prestige
I have never been that interested in claiming great power, but I am all for property and prestige. Most of us would like a little more of each of these.
But to take these forcefully, as Vladimir Putin is trying to do, as we speak, or unlawfully, as Ham and Absalom tried to do, is not moral or ethical and will harm many others along the way.
But Paul informs us of the best way to attain to all three of these, when he says,
Galatians 3:18-29 (NRSV) — 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise. …22 scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. …27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
What are we heirs of? The promises to Abraham! Of everlasting life, of property – the promised land has morphed into “the earth” which “the meek shall inherit”, of power and prestige – we are sons and daughters of the king of kings and we shall sit on thrones judging and ruling with him.
[1] John S. Bergsma and Scott W. Hahn, Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (JBL 124/1, 2005) pp 38-39.
[2] Image: Noah damning Ham, a 19th-century painting by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov [ru]
Comments