Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What is the Sin of Ham? It Might NOT Be What You Think.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 мар 2023
- Genesis 9:18-29 tells us that Noah and his family get off the boat, and Noah plants a vineyard. Then the story jumps forward to Noah getting drunk off the wine and laying uncovered in his tent. Verse 22 says “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.”
Noah wakes up and “knew what his youngest son had done to him” and then curses Canaan, not Ham, with the curse of being a servant.
Weird, right?
So, what’s going on here? What was the sin of Ham? And why does Canaan get cursed? And why is the curse to be a servant to his brothers? Well, there are three main views. And they get more interesting as we go.
----- FIND MORE FREE TRAINING -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
----- CONNECT -----
RPL TikTok: / original_mrb
RPL Facebook: / redpenlogic
RPL Instagram: / redpenlogic
STR RUclips: / strvideos
STR Facebook: / standtoreason93
STR Twitter: / strtweets
STR Instagram: / standtoreason
STR LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
----- GIVE -----
Support RPL: www.str.org/re...
Support Stand to Reason: www.str.org/do...
The contextual clues regarding the actions of Shem and Japheth do tend to point more towards a word for word literal interpretation (Ham simply witnessing his father while his father was drunk and naked), first there's the matter of why they were there, Shem and Japheth both went to the tent because Ham called them there to show them (exposing his father being a form of mockery and disrespect) and they walk backwards with a blanket to cover him, the walking backwards to avoid looking at him in his shameful condition indicates that it really was a matter of simply not wanting to shame him by looking at him while he was naked. It's worth noting that the first thing Adam and Eve did after eating the forbidden fruit was to cover themselves because they were suddenly aware of their nakedness and ashamed. People don't seem to think about how much significance was placed on modesty within the first few generations, Noah was a righteous man, and if any of Adam and Eve's views were passed on, exposing someone's body would have likely been seen akin to presenting their sins public setting, it would have been extremely humiliating, particularly for Noah who, from what we're told, at least tried to do everything in his power to live in a Godly manner.
I think the significance of the event is lost on our present generation because it doesn't take the things of G-d seriously, and the pornagraphic culture we've made, which exalts lewdness, mocks chastity, and demeans parents, makes it very difficult for people to understand something like this through the lens of someone who cares about modesty and seeks to be dignified in the eyes of G-d and man.
An interesting consideration that seems to make a lot of sense.
So good. This has always been my take. 💯😉👍
It also makes sense when you consider other passages where nakedness is seen as severe, to the point where priests had to be careful what they wore when walking up stairs so as not to accidentally expose flesh when serving God in the temple. ⚠️
Why do you say “G-d” as if it is a curse word? The reason I ask is because the only people I see ever type it out this way are Atheist. But, I’m assuming you’re not an atheist.
@@drtremor
Jews do this. The idea is to leave no opportunity to desecrate God's name (altho “God” is not a name).
@Donatron it's something I picked up in a Messianic Jewish congregation. The general premise is that His name, and by extention, titles used for His name, are too Holy to use lightly, so unless copying directly from scripture, all of His titles are generally written with a letter covered, same reason many people try to avoid pronouncing YHVH (the tetragrammaton for His name, specifically the name He told Moses), it is meant to be a sign of reverence not disdain, but people frequently use similar phrases and writing notations to mean different things, so I can understand the confusion.
Incidentally, this practice is not applied to the names associated with the incarnation, Jesus/Yeshua, Emmanuel, etc. are always written in full because they are the names associated with salvation and reconciliation with Him
This was quite the video to watch while having breakfast
😂
There should be a warning.
No kidding, me too😂
@@RedPenLogic I might have vomited a little, but I love what you do brother!
@@theaxehandle1
Lol I was going to eat and saw the video notification and thaught; '' Let me watch this a latter ''
My pancakes have tasted better
If you wrote a book on apologetics, I would definitely buy it for myself, and for my family.
Second. I honestly hope he does because he has a wonderful gift of making apologetics easier to digest.
I like Frank Turek and his work but he isn't always the best for beginners. RPL seems to make complex topics far easier to understand.
There are many. That think Ham has physical sex with. His mother ; The text never once mentions his mother in the tent; thus this was spiritual sex
@@rsar61 it's called lust
Fun fact Noah wife isn't stated to be their mother, just Noah wife
Then how does that fit with the rest of the story because then it says the other two brothers walked in backwards and covered Noah's nakedness?
My exact thought
They having been told what was done (nakedness being ascribed as husband and wife inseparable) they covered it I'm sure it was not complicated.
Yeah they covered their mom....
@@Mojo4884 I think the most difficult part of interpreting scripture for us believers is knowing when a text is a euphemism or literal. There are many details in this story that seem too specific to be metaphors. It said Noah got drunk and was literally laying naked in his tent. Ham entered the tent and saw Noah's nakedness and instead of covering him like he should have he went and told his brothers. In other examples of sexual relations in Genesis the author is very specific (so and so knew so and so), or "laid with". It wouldn't make sense for the author to use a euphemism or metaphor here.
@@markfry4304 in the long run I don't think the answer to this will required on the final exam judgement day
These are my notes on Genesis 9:22 from some time ago. Hopefully this is a benefit to some.
There have been many different interpretations of this passage
1. Many have explained Ham’s sin to be simply making fun of his father and laughing at him for being drunk and naked and trying to get his brothers to join in on the fun but is that really what he did? If so, why would his fourth son be cursed and made a slave. The punishment certainly doesn’t fit the crime and such a punishment seems quite severe.
2. Another interpretation is that Ham committed a homosexual act against his intoxicated father but there is nothing in the passage that indicates that this lewd act occurred.
3. Another interpretation is that Ham castrated his father. Again, nothing in the passage gives us any impression that such a violation occurred.
4. Finally the interpretation that I believe makes the most sense and is consistent with how Moses uses the term “your father’s nakedness” is that Ham committed an incestuous act against his mother, Noah’s wife resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child whom was to be named Canaan. Bear with me as I lay out this case.
The Nakedness Of Your Father:
Leviticus 18:7-8 NASB
[7] You shall not UNCOVER the NAKEDNESS of YOUR FATHER, that is, the NAKEDNESS of YOUR MOTHER. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. [8] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.
This passage is clearly indicating what Noah's nakedness is; it is the nakedness of one’s father is actually the nakedness of his wife, or in this particular case, one’s mother.
So what did Ham do? Did he simply just see the nakedness of his father (Noah wife, Ham’s mother) and lusted for her?
Leviticus 20:11 NASB
[11] If there is a man who LIES WITH his father's wife (commits a sexual act), he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
By looking at both Leviticus 18 and 20 it is clearly explaining what Ham did. Ham had incestuous relations with Noah's wife, his own mother. This makes perfect sense as to why Noah would curse Canaan (Ham’s son) and not Ham himself. Canaan was the direct result of Ham and Noah's wife, he was their offspring.
If you want more proof, read all of Leviticus 18. Moses opens up this chapter with warnings to not practice the sexual acts of the Egyptians or the Canaanites. The Canaanites (Ham's descendants) are known for several sexual perversions that God lays out, and says to not practice such things.
This includes:
•Incest
•Homosexuality
•bestiality
The Canaanites picked up the same sexual perversions that their ancestor Ham did to Noah's wife, his mother.
Now one may object to this interpretation and say, “Ham ‘SAW’ his father's nakedness (Noah’s wife’s nakedness), and perhaps lusted after her, but nothing in the passage indicates to us that Ham acted on this lust or committed an incestuous act on his own mother, Noah’s wife. What other evidence is there to solidify this claim?
Leviticus 20:17 NASB
[17] 'If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he SEES her nakedness and she SEES his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has UNCOVERED his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt.
To SEE one's nakedness is the same as UNCOVERING one's nakedness and according to Leviticus 20:11, to uncover one’s nakedness is to lie with them in a sexual way and this is what Ham is guilty of and this is why Canaan was cursed because he was the offspring of a incestuous sexual act.
Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus, and would have no reason to contradict himself in his writings. Furthermore, God the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write these things; therefore, God would not contradict Himself or else He would be a liar.
The nakedness of Israel and her harlotry:
Ezekiel 16:8 NASB
[8] "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.
Ezekiel 16:36-37 NASB
[36] Thus says the Lord GOD, "Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered through your harlotries with your lovers and with all your detestable idols, and because of the blood of your sons which you gave to idols, [37] therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, even all those whom you loved and all those whom you hated. So I will gather them against you from every direction and expose your nakedness to them that they may see all your nakedness.
Ezekiel 22:10 NASB
[10] In you they have uncovered their fathers' nakedness; in you they have humbled her who was unclean in her menstrual impurity.
Ezekiel 23:10,17-21 NASB
[10] They uncovered her nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters, but they slew her with the sword. Thus she became a byword among women, and they executed judgments on her. [17] The Babylonians came to her to the bed of love and defiled her with their harlotry. And when she had been defiled by them, she became disgusted with them. [18] She uncovered her harlotries and uncovered her nakedness; then I became disgusted with her, as I had become disgusted with her sister. [19] Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. [20] She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [21] Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.
Ezekiel 23:29-31 NASB
[29] They will deal with you in hatred, take all your property, and leave you naked and bare. And the nakedness of your harlotries will be uncovered, both your lewdness and your harlotries. [30] These things will be done to you because you have played the harlot with the nations, because you have defiled yourself with their idols. [31] You have walked in the way of your sister; therefore I will give her cup into your hand.'
Wow, I wish I could just copy and paste this! Really great notes.
This is incredible of you to go through typing all of this out. Thank you for bringing your knowledge the table.
Thank you!
PRAISE GOD!! THIS WAS AWESOME!! Thank you for sharing your notes with us!! I wouldn't have thought twice about Leviticus!
Very solid argument, backed up strongly by scriptural evidence. I just have two questions:
Why then, does it specifically say that Noah "got drunk", which resulted in him being naked? That implies to me that whatever the act may have been, it was directly tied to Noah in some way, rather than Noah's wife.
It also specifically says that Ham called his brothers. If what he did was have sex with his mother, why would he call his brothers? Wouldn't he try to hide or keep such an act secret?
One of the Ten Commandments states that everyone should "Honor their father and mother". Even with a straightforward reading, what Ham did (laughing at his father while he was drunken and naked, and prompting his brothers to do the same) was a very serious disgrace against his father, and might have been worthy of his entire bloodline being cursed. I think all those other interpretatios with sexual acts are reading way too much into the text, if I am being honest.
Either way, the lesson taught in the passage is pretty clear: You should never disgrace your parents.
Bro, that's awesome how simple you made it. Makes sense.
his brothers are the ones that covered up Noah's nakedness so why are you saying they are all laughing?
As a Hebrew language scholar it is clear that the Hebrew Bible is filled with idioms to deal with sexually explicit language. Our modern translations often obscure this fact, and so we are taken off guard when proposals like this are made. Israelis however who live and think in this language are much more aware of when the biblical authors are trying to address indelicate matters with delicate language. So a "straightforward reading" of an English translation that misses the inuendo or idom may in fact be a bad translation.
@@MrWaves-oj9ge I didn't say they were all laughing. Rather, I am suggesting that the reason Ham called his brothers was so that they may laugh together. But Shem and Japheth clearly did the right thing, and covered up their father instead of doing as their brother did.
Yeah it’s hard for us to imagine it as simple as that because kids today go waaaay beyond this when am disrespecting their parents but times were different and kids wouldn’t dare laugh at their parents unless it was because one told a joke back than.
While “nakedness” is used occasionally elsewhere in the Bible to mean something other than exposing of one’s own body, the account in Genesis pretty clearly means Noah was drunk and naked and Ham behaved disgracefully towards seeing Noah naked.
It says Noah “uncovered” himself, nobody else. Ham “saw” Noah’s nakedness then told his brothers. Japheth and Shem take great care to not see Noah as they took a “garment” and “covered” Noah’s nakedness. Pretty clear what happened and how it was remedied.
The difficult thing for us as modern Westernized Christians and Bible readers is understanding how such a severe consequence can be brought down in someone for something we are inundated with all the time and see no reason to be upset about it. Nudity is not held as shameful in our culture whereas the Hebrews viewed it quite the opposite. God had the approach to his altar designed specifically so the Israelites would not defile it by showing their nakedness Exo 20:26.
When we read difficult passages or things that don’t give us the same outrage, sadness, or joy as expressed by those in the passage, take a step back and try to immerse yourself in the culture this was written to while removing your own preconceived notions of morality
@@Jrag88 What do you mean?
@@Jrag88 I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
@BeanBob I don't think that's the "gotcha" you were looking for. Just because culture changes doesn't mean the word of God somehow changes.
That's like saying Shakespeare doesn't hold up anymore. Obviously, the English of his time was far different from ours and it makes it difficult to understand and read. However, the topics of the plays themselves and their delivery doesn't suddenly become irrelevant.
As perverse as western culture may seem right now, it still hasn't gone full incestous like the Moabites and Canaanites.
@@Jrag88I don’t think anyone can answer why the bible is written as such except for the author. I don’t think there was a reason mentioned in the bible why there were analogies, metaphors, and symbolisms used in certain texts. Maybe that is why there are bible scholars now and prophets back then, to interpret and relay what God is telling us. That is why the bible even mentioned that we should study His words. I would like to know though what conclusion you wish to get with this question.
So that's why they don't eat Ham...
I thought he was about to share something on food law
😂
😂
🤯
Too early in the morning for that😂
I think Ham simply saw his father literally naked and instead of helping him up just made fun of him and kicked him while he was down so to speak. For this he was cursed while the other brothers protect their father's honor.
why was canaan cursed then?
@@dante44 the sins of the father carrying down to the children in the Old Testament is not unusual. This is literally our case with Adam's sin
@@maxalaintwo3578
But Ham also had other sons who were not cursed as a result of this sin
“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. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.’”
Genesis 9:21-25
Based on these verses, I agree with you. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion than Noah was literally naked and Ham literally saw him naked. I don’t understand why Canaan was the one who was cursed. It doesn’t make sense to me, but the explanation in the video does seem to make sense of it. However, Mr B’s explanation doesn’t fit with the entire context of the passage; you have to read a lot into it. Leviticus 18:6-18 talks all about sexual purity with blood relatives and there, the mother is mentioned. It doesn’t make sense that she was not mentioned in the Genesis account with Noah and Ham if she was involved in the incident. Especially when you consider that Moses was presumably the writer of both of those books- why would he omit the mother in Genesis if the sin was committed with her?
It is a curious thing about the grandson, though.
@@maxalaintwo3578 the "sin of the father" idea comes from "the iniquity of the father upon the sons to the 4th generation" mentioned many times in the bible. This is not a direct curse from God but rather the byproduct of the children learning from a sinful father. Sinful "tradition" does not so quickly disappear in a family, (we see the sinful actions of the decendants of Ham, and by extension Canaan, still being perpetuated in the time of Moses and Joshua.)
However, Deutoronomy 24:16 says to not put a son to death for the father's sin and vice versa; it is the sin of the individual that is judged. This teaching is mentioned multiple times in the old testament as well. Also, Exodus 34: 6-7 mentions God not clearing the *guilty* for the iniquity of the father on his children, but in the verse right before this it says that he also forgives iniquity and sin. You are not charged for sin until you partake in it. But, unfortunately, it is easier for the son to sin when the father leads an example of sin.
The problem with the maternal incest view is that the opening verses explicitly state that Noah was the one that got drunk and became uncovered in his tent and then it says that ham saw the nakedness of his father. This means "seeing the nakedness of his father" does not refer to intercourse with his mother. The problem with the paternal incest view is that there's a verse that speaks about the other two brothers and it says that they did not see the nakedness of his father in the context of them having their faces turned. It'd be weird if "saw nakedness" means different things in the same chapter when talking about the same thing. The literal interpretation makes more sense but leaves gaps and questions in the interpretation. You could say Canaan did something to Noah since he was ham's youngest but we don't really know that since the genealogies most of the time are in order of importance. This chapter is very difficult.
Edit: found another piece of the puzzle guys. Noah didn't curse Ham because God had blessed him. Though I don't know why it was specifically Canaan who was cursed. I'll update yall with the correct interpretation if I find it.
Edit 2: I replied to myself with the answer to the questions I posed and answers to other questions you might ask.
Precisely. This the is a foul perversion of the story and this clickbait/viewbait video should be taken down.
Leaving my comment here for the correction
Yes, I think you are right. Plus when you go read Leviticus 18 and 20, while there is a connection of "seeing the nakedness", it is usually speaking of actively "uncovering". There is a distinction made in 20:17. Merely seeing it and being "cut off" as a result--cast out of the covenant rather than death. Since this is the case it may explain the direct effect on Cannan, they are no longer a part of the family. Perhaps Noah wants Ham to understand the same problem he has--a cursed son. When you read these two sections in context, it seems clear God also has a big problem with nudity and voyeurism as well.
Update: Alright, after much studying, reading Scripture, and discernment, I believe I've gotten to understand a little more about what happened in this incident. Primarily, some things are worth noting. First, this verse is difficult for a couple reasons, such as how little explanation is given and how it seems to contradict something else in scripture. Still, since we all know that the word of God is infallible, and with careful attention to detail, we can find the reasons why these things went as they did.
Discerning Scripture: As my friend at Red Pen Logic said, there are three main interpretations of what happened. These are the maternal incest view, the paternal incest view, and the litteral interpretation. The maternal incest view is comfortable because it seems to tie up all loose ends, but when you look in the Bible, you find that it is not biblically sound. We see this when we look at the first two verses of the story, which state,
" (20) And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. (21) Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and he became uncovered in his tent. "
As you see, verse 20 of Genesis chapter 9 identifies the person who planted a vineyard as Noah, and verse 21 says that "he" became drunk and uncovered. If you consider that the last verse was speaking of Noah and verse 21 is speaking of a "he", there is no other way to interpret this except that these verses were talking about Noah and not his wife. Then we can easily rule out the interpretation of paternal incest by noting that in the context of their brothers' faces being turned away, it says "and they did not see their father’s nakedness." Therefore, 'seeing nakedness' is literal in this chapter.
Left-over questions:
Why was Ham's seeing the nakedness of his father such a big deal?
There are a couple reasons. First, we must consider what "nakedness" in the context of the Bible means. At the time of Adam and Eve, nakedness was a sign of shame since, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, their eyes were opened to the vulnerability and the sin that were associated with being naked. Nakedness to them meant being exposed and vulnerable to each other's wickedness and the shame that came with it. This theme persists in other places of the bible, such as in acts where demons beat and stripped a man who tried to exorcise them by the name of Jesus while not being of God. Lastly, Noah's nakedness was due to drunkenness. He was acting the fool, vulnerable and naked, in the most shameful position that was possible. Ham not only did not honpr his father by looking at his farther naked and not helping him I out but also expossed that shame to his brothers and by doing so gave them the option to witness it.
Why didn't Noah curse Ham?
In the beginning of chapter 9, it says, "So God blessed Noah and his sons." We know that what God blesses, nobody can curse. Noah is no exception.
Why did Noah specifically curse Canaan and not his brothers?
This is the one with the least explanation and evidence that I've seen. The reasoning for cursing Canaan was repeatedly stated as "Ham was the father of Canaan." Still, we don't know if Noah picked him at random or if he was the firstborn. All we know is that he was alive and was cursed because of his father.
Does this verse contradict Ekekiel 18?
The main theme can be summarized in this verse: "Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways," declares the Sovereign Lord. Here, God says that the injustice of the unjust will fall on them and the justice of the just will fall on them. If this is so, why was Canaan cursed for the actions of his father? The answer is easy: Canaan was not being punished for his father's actions; he was withstanding the backfire. As Ham brought shame to Noah, so would Ham's shame be Canaan.
Additonal thought:
Note that the importance of Ham's sin is not only as a moral tale but also to show that after the flood, wickedness did not stop; it was only slowed exponentially. It is also a prophetic on how canaan would be kicked out, crushed, and enslaved by Isreal. that is all.
It’s nice to see short form content being made for stuff like this. Very concise and not forced. You left it up to the people to decide which they think is right.
I favor no.3 since it’s the Bible that interprets itself. The other 2 options seemingly force the reader to distinguish the use of nakedness in genesis vs Leviticus. And I haven’t seen any good reason as to why we ought to disconnect them.
Very cool video!!
Wow I read that plenty of times and just now thought, what did he say. Now I have to go back and look at it again. I terribly and totally missed the part of the genealogy no wonder I did not have a good understanding of it. Thanks 🙏🕊️❤️✝️
If this MAN doesn't actually inform you of THE TRUTH...... then he is just playing with you for the power and of course the money it gets him!!
The Bible is absolutely clear of what took place.........
And so WHY is this bloke not concerned of the FACTS!!
OBVIOUSLY he is CHARISMATIC (with his silly head gear) to many that follow him: but if you hope to be saved in Christ: then please keep away from deceivers asking YOUR opinion: when they absolutely know they are taking you down with them!!
🙄!
The problem with the more salacious understanding is that it doesn't make sense of the rest of the account. If "uncovered his nakedness" means something akin to having relations with either Noah or his wife, then the rest of the account (Ham telling his brothers and them walking in backwards to cover Noah's nakedness) is nonsensical, unless the latter is also some idiom since lost. Whereas, if Ham simply saw his father naked and mocked him for it (perhaps joked about it with his brothers), then the reaction of the two older brothers makes more sense in context too.
It very very easily is an idiom of distancing themselves from their brothers act. In the ancient world you slept with the kings wife (wives) to usurp power. 2 Samuel 16:22 for example in the Bible, this practice is widely known in the ancient world. Also "wash your feet" is an idiom for sex as well per 2 Samuel 11:9
@@joshbimthedoctor Josh, is this just conjecture on your part or do you have some solid historical examples to support it? I don't mean the ones you've already given, which are fine, thank you. I mean the brothers walking backwards to cover their father means . . . . with some examples from ancient literature that says this. Also, do you think Ham slept with his mother in this case, or perhaps Noah had taken other wives by that point too? Thanks.
Walking backward to not see the nakedness of their father (mother). I think that means no, we are not going to have sex with our mother.
Ham, after having sex with his mother, told his brothers because he figured they might want to have sex with her too.
@@hey.hombreso was this sex consensual?
@@biblethumper8.1 There's no real reason to believe Noah had taken any other wives by this point, they would have had to be his grandchildren to do so. But, we do know Noah had a wife, who may or may not have been the mother of the Ham.
And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent....how does this magically become Noahs' wife ?
"Nakedness" is a feminine word in Hebrew. As well as the definition of "nakedness" in Leviticus. It's not magically appearing, it literally is the definition of the word. Much love Jesus Christ is King
In the Afrikaans translation is reads "Gam, die pa van Kanaän, het gesien sy pa is kaal en het dit buite vir sy twee broers gaan vertel."
"Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and went outside to tell his brothers about it."
The implication is that he was ridiculing his father's drunken state and nakedness.
I'd be very careful of reading things in texts that simply aren't there.
I’ve done extensive research, and the unquestioned assumption we make is that the wife of Noah is the mother of Ham. There is substantial evidence that Noah may have lost his first wife (the mother of his 3 sons) and taken a new wife at the same time as his sons, when they entered the ark. This parallels similar stories such as Reuben and Bilhah, and Absalom and David’s harem (he even erected a tent, just like in Genesis 9)
Exactly Noah wife isn't stated to be their mother, just Noah wife
that's the conclusion I reached too (not conclusively)
The only claim of this sort that I heard from a Mormon was that Ham had sex with Noah which doesn't bear out in the text.
I have always interpreted this to mean that he didn't honor his father in his drunken state where he was found naked and his other son did. Everyone seems to want to make it about sex though.
That's because to know someone's Nakedness was Biblical Euphemism for sex with their spouse
@@joshuaslawson9125 But the following passages show that the other two sons walked backwards and covered their father's nakedness. so how can spousal s*x be interpreted in this passage.
@@luk1_285 while an interesting interpretation, the brother's reaction does seem to indicate, Noah was just naked. unless covering the nakedness is also symbolic.
@@luk1_285 They covered up their mother... That is the easiest way to interpret that.
@@joshuaslawson9125 that is one of the the hardest interpretation. The easiest interpretation is covering up Noah's literally. The passage says that Canaan was punished not Ham so a better explanation would be that Canaan had done some sin against his grandfather Noah.
I totally have never heard any of these views. I seriously thought the curse was just for openly mocking his father, Kind of like “hey look dads drunk and naked!”
Why can't it just be what it says? Ham saw Noah naked and rather than cover him up or ask for help covering him up, he told his brothers. Noah was mad at that and cursed Canaan instead of Ham. Why do we always have to try and find the profound answer to everything? God told us what He felt was necessary to tell us.
Thank you for bringing this up! It is so rare to have people even consider maternal incest in this passage, despite the obvious other usages of "uncovering nakedness" in the OT.
People are reaching backwards to make a marital incest the reason for Caanans curse.
The people who want that to be the reason have the same character as Caanan and Ham
Wait... What about the fourth interpretation (and only one I had so far) of this passage: That he saw (perceived that) his dad was in shame and then SPREAD the fact (humiliated him, ruined his reputation, increased the shame, gossip). Jesus teaches us that when we see a brother has commited a mistake, we are to tell him (solve it) personally, and not spread it further. Wouldn't this be a better paralel?
The name, Canaan means, "to humiliate"
I'm not a master in hermeneutics, but I'm pretty sure Ham just saw his father drunk and naked, making a fool of himself and mocked him for it. Then Noah cursed Ham's entire family line in his drunken rage.
Love that you're making videos about this stuff though. I'd love to see some analysis of the weird and messed up stories in Judges or a video about the Nephilem.
There's also some extra-biblical Jewish writings that sat that later, Canaan found standing stones with writing on them from the pre-flood world and these were related to the old false religion set up by the watchers according to Enoch, and that early post flood civilization started to go wrong because of this. There's lots if extra biblical stuff about Nimrod too, some of which is bunk, but this would be like a legacy of error: Ham disrespected his father and his line was cursed. Canaan then found information about the ancient evil they escaped, and then Nimrod built on that evil. There's then a dual legacy of cultural rot in Babel, and the land of Canaan. Babel is shattered and the pieces go everywhere, but in Canaan and Mesopotamia, they salvage some if this, and the demonic religion continued. Abram was called out of it, and acted as a beacon of goodness in the dark place of Canaan, as their inevitable conqueror, but who makes no effort to subjugate them, instead he's repeatedly a savior of others in Canaan. This continues till things go sour with Jacob's kids. Joseph saves the day there. They all know they were promised Canaan but other than Soddom, there's enough good there that God won't use force to usurp them for Israel until 400 years later, after their sin is full and they deserve judgment. And even then, canaanite culture isn't wiped out and the evil persists, eventually corrupting Israel such that people in Jerusalem take on some if their child sacrifice practices, and God wipes out half the country and enslaved the other half to wipe out the evil in his own people after warning them for a hundred years.
Totally agreed
Ham’s entire lineage was not cursed, only his line through Canaan.
He wouldn't have been drunk (most likely) when he cursed Canaan. Given that this was written to the Israelites, it's a possibility that this particular line was written as an explanation of why they were in part justified for taking the land.
When someone is covering their feet, they're taking a dump. When song of Solomon is giving some descriptions, they don't name the vagina directly. They use euphemism to avoid directly stating something taboo. It is more than likely that Ham did this egregious act with his mother, and there's plenty of academic support for it from people with, as you pointed out, better hermeneutic chops than you have.
I'm not one for leaving comments, but one thing I wanna add is that in Genisis 9 verse 1 it says "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." What God has blessed no man can curse. Noah knowing this, he cursed Ham's son Canaan and not Ham himself.
Guess in that context it was literally just seeing nakedness, because it's written then that other two brothers walked backwards and covered his father with the blanket.
Had to repost this because some self-proclaimed pastor is stalking me trying to force me to believe in his ways and hates that I don't agree with him.... some pastor right...?
I always interpreted as: "Instead of covering his father's nakedness, he went out and bad mouthed his father to his 2 brothers and possible their wives. The 2 brothers did not... they instead honored the father by walking in backwards, covered their father's nakedness, and left."
1. It clearly did say he went and tell his 2 brothers that Noah was naked right after that verse.
2. If he told the brothers, surely their wives was around... shaming Noah in front of his sons and his daughters in law
3. Please note that he is shaming the man that saved the last remnant of humanity - the man chosen by God.
Personally I still stand with this view.
In Hebrew euphemism it's easily explained, and more logical that something sexual was done, and the other brothers separated themselves from the act. This has been the view that something sexual was done since the time of the dead sea scrolls. Seeing his father naked and mocking him for it is not reason to only curse one of Ham's children.
I was actually looking into this recently, as I was studying Leviticus. I had come to the same as the third conclusion. Thanks for the video!
I did this a while back too. No RUclips videos at all; just studying with Holy Spirit, and He showed me the third conclusion as well. I even did a RUclips video on it (As a theory). I found out later that I was not alone in the view.
Genesis 9:20-24 NET
[20] Noah, a man of the soil, began to plant a vineyard. [21] When he drank some of the wine, he got drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. [22] Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. [23] Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it on their shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered up their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so they did not see their father's nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.
Why isn't a plain reading an option? Ham walked in on his father all wrecked and naked and instead of showing respect to his father he went and told his brother about their father being a mess. The other brothers honored their father by covering him and later told their father about what Ham had done.
I think with the context of the fact that this was being written during Moses's time, the references to Canaan and the fast forward to the fact that they were about to enter Canaan and drive out all the inhabitants and make them their servants is relevant.
Ham mocked the error of his father of getting drunk, breaking the fourth commandment: honor thy father. Has nothing to do with sex. Experience tells us that sons repeat the errors of their fathers or do worse, especially if they don't respect them. The most sure way to fall to a specific sinful habit is to mock your father doing so without realizing you carry the same weaknesses. The father is the spiritual head of a family, so disrespecting the father removes you from his spiritual protection. If we look at society, we can see that families that don't have a stable structure and where children don't have respect for the father are poorer in general. By disrespecting Noah, Ham has set a bad spiritual example that his children will repeat against himself which is why is posterity is cursed. As to why it was such a big deal, well who wouldn't be completely humiliated to have someone mock you while you lie naked unconscious, especially if you're as modest and scrupulous as Noah was.
Check your hermeneutics. Let the Bible interpret the Bible. The phrase “uncover your father’s nakedness” is defined in other scripture.
The problem with that theory is vs 23 "And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness." (KJV Genesis 9:23) it doesn't really work with the theory the sin was son mother relationship.
The case that is made for the 3rd scenario sounds the most probable to me. Thank you for breaking that down and it is something I definitely scratched my head about.
Ham saw his dad naked and drunk mocked him, then when Noah found out he angrily “cursed” his grandson. This is basically a cautionary tale, it’s not about incest but it is about dishonoring a parent.
I remember when I first learned #3 years ago. It sounds crazy, but is probably the best explanation.
It’s a perverse rendering that suits our wicked times that are increasing in sinfulness… as in the days of Noah.
No, it’s vying with the second one for the dumbest Interpretation, to be quite blunt. Option 1 is the only one that makes even a bit of sense. You already have to have a warped sense of thinking to come up with options 2 or 3, especially since they don’t line up with all the details the way the first option does.
@@John-fk2ky Yeah cause option 1 isn’t warped either ey? You seem to be missing the point altogether, that whole narrative about Ham’s sin is centred around the perverseness and depravity innate to the heart and nature of man, EVEN after the flood. We should be less concerned with which interpretation sounds the least perverse/warped, but rather with the one that best explains the context, and option 3 has WAY more explanatory scope and power than option 1, which, though simple, offers ZERO explanation for the event that follows - that Noah cursed Canaan and NOT Ham; it only leaves us with more questions. Besides, Leviticus offers us the cultural backdrop for how the concept of a ‘father’s nakedness’ WAS and ought to be understood given that modern audiences were NOT who the book of Genesis was written TO, rather the Pentateuch was revealed and GIVEN to ancient Jewish audience.
@@Tobi_237 Adam sinned and all humanity for thousands of years was cursed. Cursing the lineage for the sin of the one is not something new even this early in Genesis. I'm not decided on this 100% yet but I'm leaning no.1 currently. Thoughts? This is a curious topic
@@bedzy Okay, we may need to clarify a few things here. Humanity wasn’t cursed by God in Genesis 3, but rather a righteous judgement went forth from God due to Adam’s sin, hence ‘the fall’ and the entry of corruption into creation. However, regarding the curse on Canaan, that was pronounced by Noah due to Ham’s sin, that’s a specific curse for one lineage, it’s effects were upheld righteously by God so it seems to me we can call Canaan’s curse by Noah was prophetic.
Very interesting. Though I disagree, I respect the views laid out in the video. Imo, a lot has to be inferred into the text to not see it for what it is when read plainly. He saw his father naked, he acted dishonorably, his brothers walked backwards to cover him. Yes, indeed, it did cost Ham A LOT. I don’t see why this surprised anyone. We see what happens when people neglect the smallest things. Esau’s birthright was forfeited over food, Moses struck a rock and was reprimanded severely, Ananias dropped dead immediately for lying to the Holy Spirit.
I think we can only speculate. These are great insights. I can't wait to be in heaven, and Hear it from Jesus Himself. There is many mysteries in the Bible like this that we can but only speculate on, but the good news is none of them are necessary to know the answer to for salvation. It does say that He is the way the truth and the life. He also says to earnestly seek Him. So we are to keep seeking the truth in matters such as this, but the word also says don't get caught up in vein genealogies. So heart posture is important when meditating upon mysteries such as this. Neat subject though. I have wondered about this verse as well and have tried to word study on it, but did not come up with as in depth of a conclusion as this guy. Thank you Mr. Red Pen Logic.
Leviticus 18:7 is a Metaphorical/Allegorical/Symbolism of the word "NAKEDNESS" which means INCEST... and not a literal "NAKEDNESS or NUDE" Person, which means literally without clothes...
In the case of NOAH, it was narrated that he "literally" planted a VINEYARD and got "literally" DRUNK from the Fruits of the "literal" WINE that caused him to "literally" UNCOVERED (Naked/Nude) in his tent... That was the reason why Shem and Japeth "literally" got a BLANKET and "literally" WALKED backward so as not to see the "literal" NAKEDNESS of NOAH (ref. Genesis 9:20-23)... This ACT was a gesture or sign of "literal" RESPECT and HONOR to their human father (Noah) as well as the Prophet of God...
HAM "literally" SAW the "literal" NAKEDNESS of his father (Noah), and had done literally NOTHING to cover him up with Robe or Blanket, but instead told his brothers... in those DAYS that was a Shameful ACT of MOCKERY to their Parents most especially as the Prophet of God...
It was narrated that upon knowing what HAM had done at that moment when Noah woke up, Noah "literally" CURSED Ham's son CANAAN... (ref. Genesis 9:24-25)... therefore, CANAAN already literally EXISTED even before the EVENT had happened, logically speaking with some common sense... Canaan can not come from Noah's Wife...
ALL these written NARRATIVE EVENTS that had happened in Genesis 9:20-25 were ALL LITERAL EVENT SCENES...
If we base the word NAKEDNESS (Incest) on the LAW written in Leviticus 18:7, the punishment should surely put HAM and Noah's WIFE to DEATH... (ref. Leviticus 20:11-21)...
Why CURSE Ham's son, CANAAN?... it seems UNFAIR, but if the CURSE falls on HAM, the curse cease/stop with him when HAM dies... while if the curse was from Ham's son, CANAAN.., Noah's Prophecy will be fulfilled that HAM's Descendants will be the SERVANTS of the Descendants of Shem and Japeth...
God visits the INEQUITY of their Human Fathers (Parents) upon their CHILDREN up to 3rd to 5th Generations. (ref. Deuteronomy 5:9)...
We do not need the I.Q. of Einstein or Tesla to understand and comprehend this matter... unless we have CLOSED Hearts and Minds, that NO REASON is POSSIBLE other than what we believe in... or perhaps we have a very slow poor low I.Q. kind of person...
Facts and Truth, Biblically and Logically speaking with some common sense... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Ham definitely slept with his mom in a way to become Head of the family. I stayed on this story the first time I read Genesis for awhile and that was my conclusion. Noah’s wife also was never mentioned in the Bible again after that. I think it happened like this. Noah got drunk and tried have intercourse with his wife then fell asleep from being so drunk. Then Ham comes in and sees him passed out but sees his mother naked. He tells the brothers there is an opportunity there to become head of house. Brothers refuse but Ham goes and gets intimate with his mom and then Noah wakes up to see what happened.
Lol What’s ironic is Hams’ sons, Cush and Mizraim(Egypt) did practice incest when it came to the royal family bloodline. So whatever Ham did had to be passed down to his children.
Thank you for offering this interpretation! This seems to make a little more sense.
The idiom as you quoted from leviticus is uncovering nakedness. This is not what genesis describes of Ham, it uses a different verb saw. The trouble of Canaan being cursed is not a problem when you understand that Hebrew thought accepted regularly that children suffer and carry the guilt of their ancestor's sins.
God says he visits the sins of the father to the third of fourth generation.
@@fivebrosstopmos
I take that to mean "God sees if the descendants have stopped the sins of theirs fathers. Have they learned their lessons? Have the father's taught the offspring to NOT DO those sins, and the consequences of doing them? God is interested in and the purpose of marriage is making Holy Children."
The next part reads as, "God loves us so much He gives the blessings of the father's to the children, forever. Just like a thousand days is like one day with God, so is A Thousand Generations is like 1 to God. God makes blessings to keep going. But this also speaks of His Eternal Presence and position of seeing everything, everywhere, all at once.
@@nathanielalderson9111 Yes, God blesses those that bless him, and curses those who curse him.
Ooof. Someone needs to do a Red Pen Logic video on how bad this Red Pen Logic video is.
"Uncovering nakedness" *can* be a euphemism, but often is not. And this is a different verb here. Ham "saw" the nakedness of his father. And in verse 22, Noah uncovered himself. This isn't self-stimulation, either, because Ham goes in *after* this happens.
Why would Ham have sex with Noah's wife *while Noah is in the tent*? Why wouldn't you do it while Noah is away? Because you think it's safer to hope Noah doesn't wake up (assuming he was passed out) in the middle of what you're doing, or maybe he's awake and you're hoping he doesn't remember? It makes no sense.
They walk backwards and cover Noah's nakedness. This makes it sound like it's literally about seeing Noah naked.
There's no reason to think it was a sexual gaze that Ham held. His father was an old man and probably wasn't looking all that appealing passed out drunk. However, mocking the indignity of his father and bringing him to open shame by not only not revering him enough to turn his head, but then running to tell his brothers about their father's shame, is a great example of dishonoring your father.
There's no reason to have difficulty with Canaan being cursed. The tribes of Israel are blessed or cursed based on their tribal fathers' behavior.
The most plain reading of the text is the reading that also has no difficulty and doesn't require any importation of external ideas or trying to stretch language. I have no idea why you wouldn't stick with the plain, obvious, problemless reading.
This was a bad video.
Like this wasn't a problem in canaanite culture at Sodom and Gomorrah long after Canaan was Cursed!
Read the Bible in its context not yours !
You’re assuming Noah traveled without his wife. That may not have been the case.
the reason is that the plain reading as you put it doesn't make sense as to why Canaan was cursed, how the Nephilim emerged from the descendents of Canaan etc, but a euphemistic reading can do that. So either way there are issues. As you say the wording is slightly different than Leviticus, but close enough that it may mean that. Not definitive but it is very close. And if that kind of euphemism is used elsewhere in the Mosaic books it may be being used here.
@@michaelnewzealand1888The nephilim resulted from the angels and human women. Also, disrespecting and mocking his father is an easy explanation for the curse, just like God commands death for those who curse their parents.
This was fun to hear alternative ideas. I have never heard any of the ideas that aren’t the plain reading of the text, but it’s interesting to hear them.
I would love more content along these lines. There are lots of stories where it’s like “I wonder why he did that??”
Thanks!!
Genesis 9: 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
God had blessed Noah and his sons; Noah could not curse what God had blessed.
Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
The Bible says: Gen 9:18 And the (("SONS")) of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
Three sons went on to Ark; FOUR SONS CAME OFF THE ARK The writer was telling the reader who the father of the forth son was!
son H1121 Strong's numbers_ H&G Dictionary
From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, ((including "GRANDSON")), subject, nation, quality or condition, etc.,
Canaan was born during the flood and came off the Ark and was classed as the youngest son of Noah.
Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what ((his younger son)) had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Ham was not Noah's youngest son! He was the second. Shem was the youngest of Noahs sons; Japheth was the elder;
Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.
Follow the line of Canaan and you know Noah cursed the right person!
Gen 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Gen 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Gen 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
Gen 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
Gen 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.
Looking at Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
The curse of Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan. One might see how Exo.34:7 followed Canaan's children to Sodom & Gomorrah,
I am confused. Gen 9:23, 24 "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 backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness (other versions say "they would not see their father naked"), When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,..." Why couldn't it literally have been Noah naked in his tent? It is normal for fathers to give blessings on their death bed and he was still mad so he cursed Ham's firstborn.
This is very interesting, and you bring up some valid points. 🤔
I never thought to much on this.
Very interesting...I’ll have to revisit Genesis 9
Great video. 👍🏼
Wow! I kept saying "Wow!" throughout this video. Excellent interpretations. Now I'm going to go to my fellow Christians (Dad and brother) who are ardent students of the Bible, and get their take on this. Thanks!
I know this was a while ago, but I’m curious: did you ask your dad and brother? What did they say?
levitcus 18- 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Yep, Dr Heiser has covered this a few years ago on his Naked Bible podcast.
Miss him already
@@AtomicSea me too… 😢
What was his view?
@@JanSmitEde The maternal incest view.
Thank you so much for this! I was wondering about this passage for SO long and what you said corroborated some research I had done on my own but wasn't sure about. I would LOVE it if you did more videos like this
I’ve seen this debate before. I find the first/traditional view the most convincing, for reasons given by many in the comments already-mostly having to do that it is the most natural, straightforward reading of ALL the details given in the passage. The only advantage given by the third interpretation is a clear reason why Canaan would be cursed, but I don’t think that alone is sufficient to carry that interpretation. It could simply be, for instance, that Noah cursed Canaan because it was the worst punishment he could think of for Ham (maybe Canaan was Ham’s firstborn or most beloved son). The passage also suggests that Noah knew who Canaan was at the time he awoke from his drunkenness, and speaks of Ham as though he was already Canaan’s father at the time he committed his sin (though I admit that, at least in English, it is not clear).
A few other points I’d like to make:(1) just because something can be a euphemism (I.e. “saw his father’s nakedness”) doesn’t mean it is in fact euphemism. (2) the writers of the Bible, including Genesis, aren’t shy about the gory details of history. A few chapters later, we read about the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape angels, followed by Lot’s two daughters committing incest with him. There is no euphemism used there. Why should we expect it here, rather than the plain meaning? (3) I think it’s easy to be allured by the idea that we’ve found a new and “secret” meaning to the text, especially if it’s an edgy meaning like this. It can cause us to be biased toward an interpretation that isn’t as strong as we think it is. I’ve seen people fall into the same trap with the serpent seed doctrine, which is utter nonsense. Finally (4) granted, a clear emphasis of the passage is that Ham is Canaan’s father. I don’t think this is an origin story for Canaan so much as the story behind why he is cursed. Canaan was a traditional enemy of Israel, as were Edom, Ammon, and Moab. Genesis introduces all of these characters and why Israel has issues with each of them. That’s all this passage is trying to convey-that Canaan is rightfully the servant of Israel because Noah cursed him.
In the end, I don’t think it’s all that important. Thanks, Mr. B for your work.
Actually, I think the best argument for the third view is that, if Ham lay with his mother in an attempt to assert authority over his brothers (which I think is the most likely reason he would do that), it explains why Canaan’s curse would be to be the servant of Ham’s brothers.
Here's a more interesting point from a practical standpoint. Many churches today have communion with grape juice instead of wine. They say that it is because in the past wine did not actually have much alcohol. But if Noah got drunk, it certainly wasn't because he was drinking Welches grape juice.
To uncover your "father's nakedness" is to sleep with your mother. Leviticus 18:7-16; Leviticus 20:11-21. The reason the passage keeps telling us that Canaan is Ham's son is because Noah's wife was Canaan's mother. That is the reason Canaan receives the negative prophecy, it is the opposite of what Ham intentions were for his son. Ham tried to usurp his father's authority by his actions, it didn't work. The other son's were extra careful when covering the person because they didn't want to see their mom naked.
Take note: The Original Hebrew-Aramaic Word used for Nakedness in Leviticus 18:7 is "ER VAT."... while the Original Hebrew-Aramaic word used for Nakedness in Genesis 9:22, is "ER WAT."... and NOT the same in CONTEXT and MEANING... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
In my 2 decades as a Christian, this is my 1st time hearing the 2nd and 3rd possible scenarios. I have been reading this portion quite literally. Ham saw his father naked and told his brothers instead of trying to cover up his father right away. Which explains why his brothers had to cover up their father. Of cos' this doesnt explain why Ham's son was cursed instead. Which made the 3rd scenario plausible to me. Standing on the fence now btw a literal view vs a maternal incestuous view. Mental filing this case as a question to ask Jesus when He comes to take me home.
This takes a little thought, but it does track! I've never thought of it this way until you mentioned the "nakedness of Noah" which made me think of Leviticus 18:7 about "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father,...she is your mother". The only concession here is that Shem, Ham, and Japheth would not be able to control themselves around any naked woman (even though they had wives of their own). This isn't much different from Lot and his daughters though.
When one reads this part of the story, Genesis 9: 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were [k]turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
[l]A servant of servants
He shall be to his brothers.”
Noah did not curse Ham. so therefore, Ham did not have a sexual relationship with his father. Ham went outside and told his two brothers. Obviously this was to entice them to join him (Ham) into making fun of Noah. If anything, Ham was making fun of his father for getting drunk and being naked.
This did not have anything to do with Ham watching his father have sex with his wife either. The text says that because Noah got drunk and passed out, so that means that Noah just passed out.
Ham did not have sex with his mother either. That would have resulted in Ham being banished from the family. This would have been a heinous crime.
If any of the aforementioned scenarios would have happened, then Ham would have been cursed and not Caanan. The sins of the father would not have been given to the son for this.
From the text it is implied that when Ham went to get his brothers there was a time gap between when he found them and when Shem and Japheth covered Noah. Within that time gap there was a sufficient amount of time for Cannan, the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah to have homosexual relations with Noah. Therefore, the curse was on Caanan and not Ham.
My wife and had this question probably 10 years ago. If you look at Jewish tradition Ham, who married a Canaanite woman which meant that his line was not allowed to hold the Priesthood, tried to steal Noah’s priesthood garments. These garments according to Jewish lore were the same garments given to Adam in the garden and passed down to whoever was the reigning priesthood holder on the earth. Ham knowing that through his disobedience his line would be cursed thought to steal the garment which he believed would give his posterity the priesthood of God. This is why Cainan who was Ham’s son was cursed and not Ham. If you look at early Egyptian culture it was similar to the priesthood of God. He tried to emulate what his father was doing he just did not have the authority to do so.
1. Leviticus 18 talks about “uncovering” someone's nakedness. Ham simply “saw” his father's nakedness.
2. How would you metaphorize Shem & Japheth laying a garment on their shoulders, walking in backwards, and covering their father's nakedness?
3. If Ham slept with his mom and Canaan was the product, how is he already born when Noah comes to?
Unexplained mysteries in Scripture are a great gift. They are invitations to go 'further up and further in' by Him who takes pleasure in concealing a matter and revealing it to those who love the Truth enough to seek it out. The temptation to camp out in a particular conclusion is a dangerous trap. Since Scripture defines what it means to 'uncover thy father's nakedness', as Mr. B laid out so well, that part is not a mystery. Yes, Canaan is accursed because he is the offspring of Ham's union with his mother (almost certainly via intoxicated rape).
The deeper layer is in how this ties in with the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen 6 Sons of God and Nephilim narrative), which very few of us learned about growing up in Church, even though it's plain as day in Scripture. Of course, if the seed of the serpent want to conceal themselves one would expect them to perpetuate the lie that we're "all the same", even though Scripture clearly states otherwise.
"Let them grow up together" (Matt. 13) shows that the wheat and tares are appointed to grow up together until the harvest (the resurrection), and it was through Ham/Canaan that the seed of the serpent was preserved through the flood for God's purposes. Ham's partaking of such abomination is an intentional following in the ways of the serpent seed - the ways of corruption/perdition/destruction.
The Elect need to re-learn that which has gone before us (but been concealed/forgotten), because our Lord told us that such days were returning and we have entered into that time folks.... Blessings!
Fun fact Noah wife isn't stated to be their mother, just Noah wife
No, I don't buy it. In my opinion, Ham only saw the nakedness and made fun of it in front of his brothers. Everything else would've been punishable by death. Also later, when his brothers come in, they turn their heads away, "as to not see the nakedness of their father". This would not have been necessary if they just didn't want to rape him or their mother. Even though the expression is often used in a sexual context, I don't think that this is the case here.
You might have to excuse the death penalty when there are only 3 fertile males on the entire earth
I would concur that Ham saw and went to his brothers who then discretely covered their father. Canaan was cursed as the heritage of Ham.
Go read the Bible and sorry thats your opinion, the Bible said something else and I’m sticking with it.
Scott Hahn and John Bergsma wrote a great article on this in the Journal of Biblical Literature. I recommend reading it before just shutting it down.
@@benjaminwatt2436 I don't especially remember God considering extenuating circumstances for punishing immorality
"When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
“Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
Noah cursed Canaan right after he woke up. If Ham had just plowed his own mom they wouldn't have even known she was pregnant at that point; Noah wouldn't have known that his wife was pregnant and wouldn't have known the name of the kid who was theoretically conceived just hours previous.
The Bible also isn't shy about calling out incest. It's blunt in other areas of Genesis, so it can't even be because of a different author; it's in the same book.
I do have more questions now, but it does in a way make more sense now too. Thank you brother!
What really happened was poor Ham was abused by his “drunken” father, “drunken” just like later Lot was “made” drunken by his own daughters to have inter course with him…
The “bad” wine!!!!
Ham’s “sin” was that he told his brothers about it,
“revealed his nakedness” biblicaly spoken!
I'm so glad I saw this video. We just talked about this in my Patreon community. The conclusion I came to was that the text is as it is presented but the commentaries suggest that it was Ham's attitude and way of living that was the problem. I still have no solid answers on this, but I'm sticking with the commentary's explanation for now!
The proponents of the latter two views tend to ignore this verse (as it was passed over in the video):
“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 backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.”
If the crime was Ham having sex with Noah or Noah’s wife, why this emphasis on literally not looking at Noah naked? It seems like, in this case, the crime was literally looking at Noah naked.
That's a fair point, however a lot of interpretations do come from looking at the literature from an eastern lens and looking at poetic structures. I think there is value in literal interpretations but I would encourage you to look at an eastern / jewish interpretation as this is the target audience of the Hebrew Bible is / was.
@@joshcamp25
Do you have any recommendations? I get that some of the words can be euphemisms, but the verse I listed doesn’t seem to have any euphemistic meaning.
the phrase "their father's nakedness" sometimes refers to the wife of a man
@@petersimons2873
So would that mean Shem and Japheth were avoiding looking at their mother? How would that connect to Noah being drunk?
@levifox2818 Noah got drunk, had sex with his wife, and then passed out forgetting to close the tent flap or something.
The other aspect of why Ham could have slept with his mother or as I propose his step mother is that she was contaminated from the Gen 6 incident and Noah was too old. she was his second wife, so no offspring could come from her and Noah due to his age, but with Ham then sleeping with her the offspring was contimanate and we see the Nephilim re-emerge through the line mainly of Canaan - the Zanzumin and the Raphaim etc. Which is another explanation of why they had to wipe out the Canaanites.
Dude, I'm just trying to enjoy my taco bell at lunch and you go into this lol love the videos!
Wait... why did Noah get naked after what was prob the first wine ever? (Fermentation prob happened as a result of the total devastation of the flood) He got drunk (another possible first) and prob wanted a little frisky time with Mrs. Noah. Ham prob caught the whole romp to his own shame.
This is a very good idea.
Different atmospheric environment
Who in their right mind thinks that Noah slept naked for 9 months.
Sounds like some horrible wine.
Ham just saw his father naked, that's it.
Dr. Michael Heiser held the third view and made a compelling case for it.
In two minutes and thirty-seven seconds you made sense out of that story!
Correct. Excellent job going through the options and settling on the one that makes the most sense.
One addition: a lot of people seem to think it can't be the maternal one because then you potentially have "saw/ didn't see nakedness" used in two different ways. But in Romans 9:6 Paul uses the word "Israel" in 2 different ways in the very same sentence, once to mean physically and the other to mean spiritually. And since Moses wrote both leviticus and Genesis then how he defined it in leviticus is very important context.
Not sure if this is something you've been doing but I think this is a great angle for the channel to take- we're still getting short form Mr B explanations but it's not just limited to some online nonsense. Keep up the good work!
2:20 the author is Moses btw
Noah said "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25) on goes on to say" He also said, “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
Son of Ham, Kaanan is nephew to Shem and Japeth. But Noah says they are also his brothers. (Gen. 9:25)
The only way they can be a uncles AND brothers is if Ham slept with Noah's wife/his mother.
This is great! Please make many more of these. 🙏
I did a Bible study on Genesis 1-11 and if I remember correctly there is an interpretation from the mid-rash (A Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible from the 2nd century) that also believes that to see the nakedness on ones father is to castrate their father. This explains how Noah knew that he had been seen naked, and explains why he cursed his son as his son took away his ability to have more kids. There is a chiastic literary poem between the creation story and the story of the flood and Noah. The coinciding stories line up in the rivers of Eden and the kids of Noah, however Noah is missing is 4th kid in which there is the least description in the creation story. This coincides more with the first interpretation offered in the video but again it is one belief of many. Regardless of what happened this does show the importance of culture and how as westerners we need to put more effort into learning eastern culture and literature
A close friend of mine once thought the curse of Ham was dark skin (didn't do enough research), and then had the audacity to say: "I hate black people. Not you, but the ones who do stupid stuff." using the "curse of ham" to justify his racism. He said this to me because he thought we were close enough that I wouldn't get angry. And he was right, I didn't. I did however spend 40 straight minutes in his car then studying profusely what the curse of Ham actually was, found out there is no curse of Ham, it was Cannan that was cursed, and the curse was fulfilled centuries later. Love him, but he needs to mature a lot still. xD
very interesting theories but I think there is a 4th one. The clues are in the words themselves. First issue is that there is no curse on Ham or curse of Ham. It's the curse of Canaan. Which from a literal reading of the text implies that it was Canaan that did something he shouldn't. Secondly, Ham is assumed to be the youngest son. Most of the time (not always) children are written in birth order Gen 6:10; 7:13; 9:18. Shem was the eldest, Ham was the second and Japheth was the youngest. again, if you check the Hebrew rendering of the word 'son' it can also mean grandson or descendant. Canaan was Ham's youngest son. I believe it was Cannan that uncovered his father's nakedness either with Noah or his wife. otherwise, Ham's other children should be cursed too. They weren't and neither was Ham. Ham of course did wrong by seeing the nakedness of Noah and reporting it instead of covering it, which is a lesson in itself! If you read the text carefully, Ham missed out on a generational blessing as Noah blessed Shem and Japheth but said nothing to Ham. For me this more suits the reading of the text otherwise Canaan was just picked on for no reason, except for theory 3 maybe.
I've actually been wondering about this passage for a while. I'm a nudist, and I can't find any biblical reason to believe simple nudity is wrong, but this passage has always tripped me up because I don't know how to interpret it. A common interpretation is that Ham sinned simply by seeing Noah's naked body, but I think your interpretation is more interesting, and probably more accurate, because you're reading it in the context of everything else, rather than interpreting it at a surface level.
nudism is wrong
I think ham mocked him and disrespected him in front of the brothers. The brothers probably rated out ham. They walked backwards to cover his nakedness. Hams future bloodline was cursed. Cannan the people
For me the proof that Ham slept with his mother to produce Canaan is found in Gen 9:24-27. Canaan’s curse is to be a servant to his brothers. Who are his brothers? The ones to whom he’s made a servant. Shem v.26, and Japheth v.27. Canaan is made a servant to his brothers, the sons of Noah, not the other sons of Ham. Canaan’s brothers are Shem and Japheth, but Ham is his father. That along with Leviticus 18, I think the incestuous view is compelling. I hear folks who take the mocking view say they’re just reading the text, but curiously enough mocking or laughing are not in the text.
In verse 21 the set-up for what follows is that he lays uncovered in his tent. That would be an unnecessary thing to mention if he was not the direct object of his son's sin.
If Canaan was already born then the curse on Ham would miss his primary heir, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons instead of Joseph because his heirs were born already.
That said, I do love your videos and presentation style. Please keep makin' 'em and so glorifying our God.
Awesome, great stuff , keep this new avenue open and I appreciate the quick appraisals, God Bless you
To have looked upon your father’s nakedness means to have slept with his wife in which that means that you slept with your mother or stepmother and so she was impregnated by her son which angered Noah to curse the child she had just conceived
I agree with this video, considering a number of things, mainly:
1. It should be noted that both Genesis and Leviticus are written by Moses, so his use of the euphemism, "saw his father's nakedness," would have similar meanings;
2. Ham would not be the only person to challenge his father's authority by having incestuous relations with his father's wives/concubines. King David's son Absalom deliberately did this to undermine King David;
3. Punishing Canaan as if he were the consequence of an abomination would make sense, so he would see fit to curse Canaan, and ignore Ham;
4. Canaan was obviously not present at the time of the misdeed of his father, Ham. He definitely wasn't mentioned at that time. So it's very likely that Canaan is the result of this sin.
An apologetic, by the name of Sam Shamoun, breaks down the matter in detail.
Some on my mind recently:
1) Why did Abraham pretend Sarah was his sister the SECOND time?
2) In Leviticus, why do I sense that there is so much more autonomy for hubsands to take advantage of their wives, rather than the other way around?
3) Why is there a brief mention of barley and its head in Exodus 9:32-33?
Just came across this video today. The funny thing is, I had been wondering about this very thing a few weeks ago, and had done some research into it.
The sources that I came across had the same views, as well as a couple of others.
While not one of the popular views, another interpretation I've heard from some people in a traditional Jewish background is that Ham castrated his father. The central idea here is that after Noah and his family leave the ark, God tells Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply (same as Adam and Eve in the garden) thereby implying that Noah is supposed to continue having children. When Noah gets drunk and Ham looks upon his nakedness, Ham removes Noah's ability to further God's command and blessing to the family. This would explain how Noah new what Ham had done when he woke up. The older sons would have been the ones to attend to their father (covering up meaning to seal up a wound) and would explain why Noah curses Canaan in a rage. Castration would have been seen as an attempt to usurp Noah's position and take the role of the dominant male rather than the firstborn son. So Noah curses Canaan to shut down Ham's attempt to usurp the traditional order.
Again, this is just another view that fills in some different pieces of the puzzle. I'm not saying that I'm entirely convinced of the argument, but it's an interesting position to meditate on. It also fits with the theme of sons trying to take their father's role/position (David's son Absalom, the sons of Aaron bringing fire into the tabernacle which was only the role of the high priest, etc). But overall, the dialog of all of these different interpretations seems to be part of the point of the story since it forces us to consider multiple motivations and outcomes. I think it's intentionally ambiguous.
How does vs 23 work with either incest view?
Genesis 9:21-23
21 He drank some of the wine, became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a cloak and placed it over both their shoulders, and walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father naked.
I am STUNNED more pastors don't preach on this passage.
Most pastors don’t follow God.
I’m a firm believer that ham had relations with his own mother. The used of the term his father’s nakedness and the facts that the son is cursed.
Well these feel like details I was better off not digging too deep into
Tis better to know and learn, than not knowing and questioning why things happened. History isn’t pretty, but its why he was cursed.
Honestly I think the reason why we don't know is because this is all so disturbing we don't wanna hear it.
People are just looking for scandal that isn't there.
Ham didn't just see his father's nakedness, he also went and told his brothers about it. Telling his brothers that their drunk father passed out naked in his tent and not actually being a part of the group who went to cover him up, or not covering him up himself, speaks to the likelihood of Ham mocking Noah. There is also the possibility that Ham saw his naked mother lying beside his father but just as with the view that Ham slept with his mother, that requires adding to the text.
You missed the part where it said his “youngest son”. Ham was the middle son. Canaan was Ham’s son (it was mentioned twice). So it had to have been something that Canaan did for him to get so cursed. There really is no reference as to what happened, other than Noah got drunk and Ham saw him naked. But note, Noah was drunk IN HIS OWN TENT. What was a kid doing in there? Was he ridiculing his father (grandfather) to the other boys . We don’t know how old they were. It could have to do with maybe that he didn’t respect his father and try to cover his shame….. quite the mystery
It's not sex. It's like the pointing out of baldness in a later text; it's about looking for flaws in parents, whether your biological father and mother or your godparents in the Church. The problem is not that he saw his father naked, it's that he disrespected his father by looking and immediately telling others.
It seems pretty clear if you read Leviticus. I don't know why there is debate. Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus. In Leviticus 20:11 we see "If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death." In Leviticus 18:7-8 we see "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. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness."
In Genesis 9:20-25 we see the father's nakedness euphemism (because Moses is the author) in regards to the interaction between Ham and Noah, "Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 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 backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers."
In nearly all instances of the use of "father's nakedness" it fits the narrative espoused from Leviticus by Moses of a sexual act with one's own mother. Ham clearly has incestual sex with his mother, and his son (Canaan) is cursed because he is born from this infidelity. The Canaanites, tribes descending from Canaan, are also the same people who fought with the Israelites, who descend from Shem through Abraham.
Sanhedrin 108b.15
The Sages taught: Three violated that directive and engaged in intercourse while in the ark, and all of them were punished for doing so. They are: The dog, and the raven, and Ham, son of Noah. The dog was punished in that it is bound; the raven was punished in that it spits, and Ham was afflicted in that his skin turned black.
For those wondering why this curse is thought to be the reason why slavery was found okay in Christian nations. The only reference is in the jewish talmud
See, I don't view it as a punishment for Canaan, rather Noah prophesies, about ham's decedent's not being so great, it would have been shameful for ham to hear about the Canaanites (his descendents) in this way.
There's also another option. Inserting Canaan in the story is an etiology (retcon origin story) to explain how it was justified for the Hebrews returning from Exodus to conquer the land of the Canaanites.
This mental gymnastics people go through is ridiculous. The third "view " is correct. Not only does it explain the curse but also flows with the natural use of the phrase "saw his father's nakedness" used by the traditional belief the first five books were written by the same author, Moses.