The other day, a fellow messianic believer who I met on Facebook shared some very interesting information that I think goes a long way towards explaining why it was Ham’s son Canaan and not Ham himself who was cursed.
And since she also provided solid references, I decided this couldn’t be ignored and so chose to do a post on it.
Let’s take a look at Genesis 9:20-25.
Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”
Now many commentaries assume that the “youngest son” is referring to “Noah’s son Ham“
However, there are other scholars who assert that the language in Genesis 9:24 points to Canaan being the one who had committed some “wicked act” against Noah and NOT Ham.
In other words, “youngest son” refers to “Ham’s youngest son” and NOT “Noah’s youngest son“.
So the difficulty we face is one of grammar.
From this perspective, Genesis 9:21-25 should read as follows:
Then he [Noah] drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his [Ham’s] younger son [or, more properly, youngest son] had done to him. Then he said: “Cursed be Canaan . . .”
Before we do a situational breakdown of what actually transpired, we need to take a closer look at the phrase “became uncovered“.
Let’s let Scripture define Scripture by having a look at Leviticus 18:6-7.
‘None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord. 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.–Leviticus 18:6-7
There is no doubt that in this context, the phrase “uncover nakedness” refers to a sexual violation.
So if we take this as the meaning of “became uncovered“, this would mean that after Noah got drunk, it wasn’t just a matter of his blanket falling off of him leaving him lying there naked.
He was actually sexually violated!!!
So the following is a step-by-step analysis of what may have occurred. (I’m not going to be dogmatic about this.)
(1) Noah gets drunk and is sexually violated by Ham’s youngest son Canaan.
(2) Ham is first on the scene after his son’s perverse act.
(3) Ham is in shock (and maybe somehow knowing that it was his son Canaan who had just perpetrated this vile deed), reports what he witnessed to his brothers.
(4) Ham’s two brothers with their backs turned respectfully cover Noah up.
(5) Noah awakens and is aware that Canaan had defiled him, and thus curses him for it.
One question that arises is, was Canaan really the youngest son of Ham?
For the answer to that, take a look at Genesis 10:6.
“The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.“
In the birth order, Canaan is listed last. So Canaan was the youngest son of Ham.
In conclusion, if this interpretation is true, this means that Canaan was NOT punished for something Ham did (which come to think of it doesn’t make any sense), but was punished for his own sin.
This explanation would also explain why the fact that Ham is Canaan’s father is emphasized twice in this account (verses 22 and 24).
Of course, there are many unanswered questions.
What in the world possessed Canaan to engage in a sexually deviant act with his grandfather Noah?
How did Ham know for sure that Canaan had engaged in a sexually repulsive act with Noah?
Did he actually witness Canaan in the act?
I’m not going to be dogmatic and say this is the only way to interpret these passages, but it makes pretty good sense to me and if true, it also I feel would explain why God would eventually want to have the Canaanites wiped out.
For those interested, the references asserting that “youngest son” in Genesis 9:24 refers to Canaan are as follows.
The Soncino Chumash,” edited by A. Cohen, London, 1956, p. 47.
The Pentateuch & Haftorahs, by JH Hertz, London, 1972, p. 34
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible Translation by Joseph Rotherham
P.S. Thanks Mei Ling for sharing this information!
Would this be considered the first act of homosexuality? Does God’s word point any reference of Cain or dependents engaging in perverse acts?
No way of really knowing for sure if this was the first act of homosexuality. Possibly.
Uncovering his nakedness, the Bible says, is the nakedness of his WIFE…in other words, someone had uncovered Noah’s WIFE…THAT is a man’s nakedness…Can was having a sexual encounter with his grandmother it would seem. READ Leviticus 18:8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; IT IS YOUR FATHER’S NAKEDNESS
Correct, that would be a direct application of the idiom “uncovering the nakedness of a man”. Was Canaan a teenager then? Was Naamah (or Emzara), Noah’s wife, Canaan’s biological grandmother, or rather step grandmother? Canaan could have been the result of Ham having laid with Noah’s wife…
One way or another a sexual act of some sort was committed, not just merely looking…
Ham looked upon his father’s nakedness, which would have been Ham’s mother.
Seems like Noah cursed Canaan because he was the result of a incest. Ham’s mother would also have been Canaan’s mother.
Thank-you. I have wondered about that. Ham or Canaan? Interesting.
Hi there! Thanks for reading and happy you found it interesting. Please check out some of my other articles. I’m sure you’ll find those quite enlightening as well. Shalom.-Rich
Hi I want to debate with you on the bible if you win I will give you a 100usd are you ready ?i will prove to you that the Pentateuch is fake and all your basics of treating the bible as the word of God is nothing but a mind control tactic are you game ??
Shalom Achi..You’re missing the point because The curse was really a Blessing..and it had nothing to do with what Canaan did..
Here, the people who serve in the Army are Servant of Servants are they not?..So what is the Curse? Our Police too and Our Fire Department, If Hamosiach Yahushua said the Greatest of us is the one who serves his brothers,. Matthew 23:11/Luke 22:26..So why do we look at the curse as it really was a curse..This is the same way our Savior spoke, in Parables so those who are diligent will find Him..The Answer is in Joshua 9:..here’s where the Original inhabitants of the Land the Canaanites mainly the Gideonites..Joshua 9:17..and they were made Servants in Israel even to His Cohen/Priest..These Canaanite were faithful in there service to His Nation and died faithfully in a civil battle with the Kings Shaul and David..This is the same Canaanites who told King David what to Do to stop the Famine in Israel. 2 Samuel 21..
The had Nothing to do with a Sexual sin with Canaan..
And Japheth is Noah first born Berisheet 10..Shem his last, and the last shall be first and the first( born)last..if we follow the pattern in Torah we won’t get Lost in the Navim..
HalleluYah
Shalom
Shalom 🙂
Rich, you know, I like your original take on this place (comment 9.3) a LOT better. In fact, I’m a bit disappointed that you fell for this interpretation.
Why am I disappointed? Because your original insight (in 9.3) seems to flow from the desire to know God’s will and to be guided by him, but this one (in my perception, at least) serves more the pleasure of our human intellect. (Not that I see anything wrong with intellectual pleasure – it’s just God’s word is not the place to engage in it)
Let me explain myself.
The Messiah’s direct disciples have warned us against “speculating beyond what has been written”.(1 Corinthians 4:6) Canaan is not mentioned anywhere here in connection with what’s happened (he is not in the scene) and if God chose not to bring him into the picture, I don’t think we should attempt to do so.
Now, I don’t think there is anything Biblically wrong with making reasonable inferences. Like, when you say in 9.3 that Ham must have laughed at Noah when talking to his brothers (“Guess what happened to pops!, etc.”) Yes, because if he was not in that type of a state of mind, he would have quietly covered Noah up and would have been embarrassed to talk about what he saw. Apparently, this kind of respect was not written in his heart, neither that part of the law (I’d still say that the Leviticus part here can easily refer simply to nakedness).
Don’t know if you have kids, but I feel very violated when mine as much as go though my dresser drawers. Now put yourself in Noah’s position – knowing that you have been the talk of the family would have been extremely embarrassing.
Transposition of the curse is consistent with other places. For example, when Adam ate of the tree, God did not curse him, but the ground. Also, Exodus 20:5 states that the LORD visits the iniquity of the father’s upon the children to the third and fourth generation, and what happened to Canaan would be consistent with this. Also, this was a sin of disregard and disrespect between the father(Noah) and the son (Ham, sticking to the original interpretation) – and Noah’s curse if Canaan would mirror that. (And this would be the reason for emphasising that Ham is the father of Canaan, along with the fact that the historic fucus is now shifting to Canaan anyway, and the explanation of why these people’s land is taken away from them is in order)
You rightly note in 9.3 that we tend to try and stick the scriptures into the framework of our modern perception and culture, instead if remembering that we are talking a Middle Eastern setting thousands of years ago. Precisely. I think that Western culture has gone a long way from how God wants us to perceive things. And here, our modern Western mind has a really hard time accepting the notion that a sin like this (very small by today’s standards, or not even considered a sin at all) can produce a curse of that caliber. There just had to be something more here, right? No.
Lack of inherent respect, malicious gossip (which you also mention in 9.3) and the violation of Leviticus 18:6-7 are serious sins in God’s eyes, whether our culture supports this or no. And I think this is the point here.
Hi Lena, I wouldn’t go so far as to say I fell for this interpretation. As I mentioned in the article, this interpretation was also brought to my attention, I thought it interesting, so I decided to share it. I feel your comments are just as valid and interesting as well. Thanks for sharing and SHALOM to you!!!
My apologies – as soon as I wrote “fell for it” I was wondering if I was making an overstatement. Should have listened to my hunch 🙂
Absolutely no need for apologies Lena. Appreciate your comments! Shalom!
We have been discussing this passage in church. Your interpretations are instructive. But I’ve got to admit I’m still confused. But one think I know for sure this not just about about a son laughing at his drunk naked Dad, something a lot bigger is going on here
Understand your confusion. There’s a lot of controversy surrounding these passages.
Please read the next verse, Leviticus 18:8…it explains CLEARLY what is meant by Noah’s nakedness….his WIFE was UNCOVERED…the rest of the paragraph is telling you who you can not UNCOVER…it meant “have sex with”…Also, the Hebrew word for youngest “son” can be interpreted as nephew OR grandson also….Canaan was the youngest grandson and he had “uncovered” Abraham’s nakedness, in other words, he had sex with his grandmother….what the paragraph in Leviticus is saying NOT to do
I have been reading the 1611 Authorized King James version of the Bible. Only in the last 3 years have i finally have and take the time to read the Bible. I have also been researching what was confusing to me on hundreds of other web sites. I cannot believe that what I learned in my early years from the church my parents took us, that it was all lies! I am in my 60’s and have a lot of catching up to do.
Since this is about Noah and his sons, I do not know why, no one referenced that God destroyed the whole world except Noah’s family by the flood because of their disobedience, corruption of their ways, very grave offenses, wickedness and violence. Genesis 6:5 “And God saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.” I do not have any scriptural proof at this time, but it could be that bestiality, sodomy, homosexuality, etc., were performed before the flood and Noah and his family were at least aware of it.
With all of the killings, plagues, etc, that have been written about in the Bible, and how serious God and Jesus are about traditions, idols and commandments, it is unfathomable that “the world” continues to disregard the “way of the narrow path”, “to be Holy as they are Holy”. “to live as Jesus lived”. Jesus our judge may only allow 1000 or less to be with Him forever!
Thirsty For His Word, where would you come up with the idea that only 1000 or less will inherit eternity?
This interpretation is wrong. Period. Based on speculation and introduces concepts that are not referred to in verse 22
Ham ‘un-covered’ his father’s nakedness by having intercourse with his mother or step-mother – Naturally, when Noah ‘cursed’ Canaan, this did not happen right away, because it takes 9 months for a full-term pregnancy. Canaan is the fruit of Ham and his mother’s relationship. Un-covering his father’s nakedness is a reference to sex!
Good point, and Scripture supports your take.
Thank you for stating that!! When I was a little girl, I was taught in Sunday School that Canaan was cursed because Ham, his father, saw Noah, his grandfather, naked. So, if you use that logic today, a son would be cursed if his father gave his disabled elderly grandfather a bath.
People need to read Genesis 9:22 like our teachers taught us in English class. Verse 22 says ” And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.”
In this sentence, Ham is the subject and the noun. By using commas between the words “Ham” and “saw”, the statement “the father of Canaan” is a description of who Ham is.
Moving along in the sentence, the word “saw” is the verb. Since Ham is the subject of the sentence, Ham is the one who ” saw the nakedness of”.
In the words “his father”, “his” is a pronoun describing Ham and “father” is a noun describing Noah. Noah is the father of Ham, not Canaan.
In the last statement of the sentence, “and told his two brethern without”, the word “told” is a verb and “his” is a pronoun describing Ham, the one who “told”. The words “two brethren without” is describing Ham’s two brothers Japheth and Shem.
The word saw means to have sex with, so Ham had sex with Noah’s wife, his stepmother.
If you go to Leviticus 18:7-8, It tells you who the nakedness of his father is.
In verse 7 it says “The nakedness of thy father, OR the nakedness of thy mother, shall thou not uncover; she is thy mother; THOU SHALT NOT UNCOVER HER NAKEDNESS.” Uncovering (saw) a mother’s nakedness means to have sex with the mother or HER husband, the father.
Verse 8 says ” The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover; IT IS THY FATHER’S NAKEDNESS.” The wife, in this case, is a women that is not the children’s birth mother. The wife is a stepmother.
So if Ham would have had sex with his mother OR father, then Genesis 9:22 would have said that Ham saw the nakedness of his mother. It doesn’t say that. It says nakedness of his father.
Leviticus chapter 18 is all about sexual immorality. It clearly lists who you can’t have sex with. Canaan was cursed because he was born from a union between Ham and his stepmother, Noah’s wife.
Thanks again for stating this! Have a blessed day!!
Climate change should also be considered as an integral part of the story. Yes, I’m serious. Before the flood, a mist rose from the ground and watered the vegetation. The flood was brought about through the release of water in aquifers, but also from rain. The canopy of moisture around the earth burst open. The change in climate facilitated the fermentation of grape juice, which produced wine. It’s the first mention of drunkenness in the Bible, partly because grape juice did not ferment when the canopy enveloped the earth. This would also explain the uniqueness of seeing a rainbow in the clouds, which was a marker of the Noahic covenant. Therefore, Noah did not intend to get drunk, but when he did get drunk, Canaan took advantage of his drunken helplessness.
I think your explanation of Noah’s cursing Canaan is cogent and well-stated. God bless.
One can not curse who God blesses. God blessed Noah and his 3 sons in the beginning of Gen: 9. Therefore Noah knew better not to curse Hem, so he cursed his youngest son. It’s sad but true that the children does suffer for the sins of their parents.
Canaan was not Noah’s son. Ham had sex with his mother, Noah’s wife, which produced an illegitimate son, Canaan. Having sex with a married woman is “uncovering his nakedness” as explained in the following: https://www.genesisandgenetics.org/2016/04/21/noahs-wife/
https://www.119ministries.com/teachings/video-teachings/detail/noahs-nakedness-and-canaans-curse/
i always knew Noah was sexually assulted but never understood why Caanan was cursed because I thought Ham did it. But thanks to this, my doubts has been cleared.