Ham's Sin

vkochetta · #1 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 11:51 AM

I have been working through the OT Series on the RTS/iTunes site by Richard Pratt.

He mentioned that Ham's sin might have involved homosexual activity with Noah.

I had not come across this before and doesn't seem to be in the texts of the English translations I have looked at.

Are there Hebrew vocabulary or OT euphemisms that might be pointing to this?

Thanks,

--- Vinny Kochetta

DMcFadden · #2 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 12:00 PM

Just the normal notion that the Hebrew euphemism typically refers to sexual activity. Sexuality activity between two men . . .

Thomas2007 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 12:11 PM

I've heard that before, it is incorrect and a failure to properly exegete the text. They are reading their own interpretation into it about his father's nakedness - when Scripture defines the meaning of these terms.

The text tells you precisely what Ham did. He fathered Caanan. It tells you that in verse 18, "and Ham is the father of Canaan;" then again in verse 22, "And Ham, the father of Canaan."

Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, which Leviticus 20:11 tells us means: "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness..."

Canaan is a brother to Ham, Shem and Japeth - and Ham is his father. (Genesis 9:25-27) Now, go back and re-read Genesis 9:18-29 and this section should make a lot more sense, beginning right there at verse 18 when it introduces the sons of Noah, but is sure to point out that Canaan is the son of Ham.

Blueridge Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 12:31 PM

Can't prove it but I believe there was something unclean done.

BobVigneault · #5 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 12:31 PM

So Thomas, if Ham 'slept with his mother then what does it mean that Shem and Japeth, walked backwards and covered their father's nakedness? This is interesting.

Blueridge Baptist · #6 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 12:35 PM

Bob Vincent recently covered this in a podcast I got. I thinks he's on the money.

SermonAudio.com - Ham

Contra_Mundum · #7 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 01:10 PM

I believe Canaan is clearly the "guilty" person here.

I don't believe Ham is the "youngest" son, rather, Canaan is the "youngest," the same as in a list of the sons of David (Mt.1) JESUS is the "youngest" Son of David in that list. Canaan is also a son, albeit a grandson, of Noah, and to this moment in the text, the youngest one listed.

Canaan is cursed, ergo Canaan is the guilty party (of whatever), unless it can be shown otherwise. My guess, though far from dogmatic--it was a case of publicized contempt of the patriarch, a violation of the 5th commandment (to speak a little anachronistically). IOW, something that would have been better kept a private sin on Noah's part, became public fodder for mockery.

Ham is ashamed. Ham cannot fix the situation. Ham must get his brothers to solve the problem. FAR too much has been read into Ham's "telling his brothers." If one has not already decided Ham is guilty of something, this is not a part of the problem, but a means to a solution to the problem.

A5pointer · #8 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 01:40 PM

It seems to me to have been a sexual act. If not, very much is made of just "seeing naked". These things shock our modern western sensabilities but seem to be part of the biblical record. I think the same thing can be seen in Ruth and with David and Abishag.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #9 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkochetta

I have been working through the OT Series on the RTS/iTunes site by Richard Pratt.

He mentioned that Ham's sin might have involved homosexual activity with Noah.

I had not come across this before and doesn't seem to be in the texts of the English translations I have looked at.

Are there Hebrew vocabulary or OT euphemisms that might be pointing to this?

Thanks,

--- Vinny Kochetta

Look at Robert Gagnon's website for info.

DMcFadden · #10 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

I've heard that before, it is incorrect and a failure to properly exegete the text. They are reading their own interpretation into it about his father's nakedness - when Scripture defines the meaning of these terms.

I'm not sure about the motives of the people Vinny is reading/talking to, but I was simply answering his question, not expressing agreement with that view.

greenbaggins · #11 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 03:33 PM

Surely, "seeing the nakedness of someone" is not always the same as having sexual relations with someone. It can mean that, but it does not have to mean that. In the text of Genesis itself, it is clear that Noah lay uncovered in his tent. He was naked in his tent. This makes it extremely unlikely that Ham had sexual relations with Noah's wife. The subject of nakedness is Noah himself. Therefore, the usual interpretation of Noah being there naked, and Ham happening upon him naked makes the most sense. The contrast of Ham's behavior with Shem and Japheth's behavior makes it clear that Ham's behavior was not honoring to Noah, whereas Shem and Japheth were honoring. It is not too much of a stretch, then, to suppose that when Ham talked about it with his brothers, it was in a "Hey, did you see our dumb dad? He's lying there naked in the tent! What a sot!" kind of way. It was not a sin to happen upon Noah naked. It was what he did do and what he did not do that made him at fault. Remember also that sin is covenantal, especially honoring one's parents. Just as Ham the son of Noah did not honor Noah, the curse came upon Ham's son. The punishment fits the crime. See here for my sermon on the passage.

vkochetta · #12 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 03:43 PM

I think the comment I heard from the lecture was mostly as an "aside" and not really the main point of his lesson. He didn't give any rationale or support.

Not knowing Hebrew and being unfamiliar with their cultural phrases, I thought I'd throw the question out there.

Some of the replies tie in Lev 18:9 and Lev 20:11-20 for similar uses of language.

Although I am comfortable with the plain reading of the text, the perspective that it was a physical violation does seem to explain the harshness of the curse.

I'm always learning and always open to godly, thoughtful input. Thanks for your replies

---Vinny

greenbaggins · #13 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vkochetta

I think the comment I heard from the lecture was mostly as an "aside" and not really the main point of his lesson. He didn't give any rationale or support.

Not knowing Hebrew and being unfamiliar with their cultural phrases, I thought I'd throw the question out there.

Some of the replies tie in Lev 18:9 and Lev 20:11-20 for similar uses of language.

Although I am comfortable with the plain reading of the text, the perspective that it was a physical violation does seem to explain the harshness of the curse.

I'm always learning and always open to godly, thoughtful input. Thanks for your replies

---Vinny

It is certainly a possible reading of the text. However, the harshness of the curse can also be explained by the fact that honor and shame were much more important to that generation (especially given the connections noted in my sermon between Adam and Noah), and nakedness was much more serious then than it is to us. The consciousness of Adam's nakedness would have been heavy on Noah's mind, especially since there was only one link necessary genealogically between Noah and Adam. I.e., Noah would have been talking with one person who knew Adam. The Adam connection also makes the simple nakedness interpretation much more convincing.

Calvin'scuz · #14 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Canaan is cursed, ergo Canaan is the guilty party (of whatever), unless it can be shown otherwise. My guess, though far from dogmatic--it was a case of publicized contempt of the patriarch, a violation of the 5th commandment (to speak a little anachronistically). IOW, something that would have been better kept a private sin on Noah's part, became public fodder for mockery.

This is similar to the explanation I've heard, namely that the father was responsible for the negligent acts of his son. So if Noah would have cursed Ham for what was done he would have brought condemnation upon himself. Therefore, to place the shame on the actual perpetrator (Ham), he cursed Canaan (the son of Ham) so that Ham would be condemned for his own act. If this is the correct viewpoint, it appears to be a purely forensic solution for attributing blame and condemnation.

Hey....but I could be wrong.

A5pointer · #15 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 08:17 PM

Are we imposing our sensibility on the text? The Leviticus passage should be enough for us. We all accept scripture interprets scripture. It should be as shocking to us that a people is cursed for the sin of looking on a drunk father naked. It just does not make sense. Yes it says Noah fell asleep naked but this is no less a part of the euphemism as is the act and the description of the act and of the brothers not participating in the same act. We as moderns are well aware of euphemisms used to describe sexual acts. It may well be that biblical writers used them as we would, to be less vulgar and or to shield the graphic description from the youth. The later makes sense as the books of Moses would have been read to the masses. I understand the suggested interpretations but think they are based(not intentionally) on predetermined thoughts rather than bare acknowledgement of the text.

Contra_Mundum · #16 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 11:22 PM

We all seem to be tossing out our observations here, without berating one another for different opinions, which is a good thing. I think it gives those without commentaries several options to think through.

For my part, the least ambiguous piece of the narrative is the first verse of the pericope: 9:18. There four of Noah's "sons" are named as the introductory words. Even if there were questions regarding the 3 immediate sons' birth order, Canaan was born after the flood. Canaan is the youngest son in this context. Noah curses Canaan for what his youngest son did to him--whatever that was.

This whole matter culminates in Moses' day with the Israelites preparing to expel the Canaanites from the land--i.e., curse fulfilled.

staythecourse · #17 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Surely, "seeing the nakedness of someone" is not always the same as having sexual relations with someone. It can mean that, but it does not have to mean that. In the text of Genesis itself, it is clear that Noah lay uncovered in his tent. He was naked in his tent. This makes it extremely unlikely that Ham had sexual relations with Noah's wife. The subject of nakedness is Noah himself. Therefore, the usual interpretation of Noah being there naked, and Ham happening upon him naked makes the most sense. The contrast of Ham's behavior with Shem and Japheth's behavior makes it clear that Ham's behavior was not honoring to Noah, whereas Shem and Japheth were honoring. It is not too much of a stretch, then, to suppose that when Ham talked about it with his brothers, it was in a "Hey, did you see our dumb dad? He's lying there naked in the tent! What a sot!" kind of way. It was not a sin to happen upon Noah naked. It was what he did do and what he did not do that made him at fault. Remember also that sin is covenantal, especially honoring one's parents. Just as Ham the son of Noah did not honor Noah, the curse came upon Ham's son. The punishment fits the crime. See here for my sermon on the passage.

Thanks. That's the way I have always interpreted it as well. The way the story is told, with the brothers purposefully not viewing their naked father makes it simple to envision. I was aware of the definition of uncovering a fathers nakedness with incest and usually prefer to have Scripture interpret Scripture, but I have to make an exception for it here because of the brothers remedy of Noah's dishonorable (naked and drunk) state.

kalawine · #18 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Are we imposing our sensibility on the text? The Leviticus passage should be enough for us. We all accept scripture interprets scripture. It should be as shocking to us that a people is cursed for the sin of looking on a drunk father naked. It just does not make sense. Yes it says Noah fell asleep naked but this is no less a part of the euphemism as is the act and the description of the act and of the brothers not participating in the same act. We as moderns are well aware of euphemisms used to describe sexual acts. It may well be that biblical writers used them as we would, to be less vulgar and or to shield the graphic description from the youth. The later makes sense as the books of Moses would have been read to the masses. I understand the suggested interpretations but think they are based(not intentionally) on predetermined thoughts rather than bare acknowledgement of the text.

You've got it. I see no way around your interpretation. Everyone else seems to be either using a modern mind set to interpret a biblical text (a no-no) or they are telling what they "think." Scripture does a great job of interpreting Scripture!

staythecourse · #19 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 12:49 AM

Good point, but how do we then interpret the brothers backing up with a covering? It makes no sense to me with the incest interpretation.

VirginiaHuguenot · #20 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 01:03 AM

For consideration, see Matthew Poole's Synopsis, Genesis 9, which is available online for free here.

Contra_Mundum · #21 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 01:32 AM

Here are texts that use this language: Of all, which of them indicates explicitly sexual intercourse?

Gen 42:9 And Joseph remembered the dreams that he had dreamed of them. And he said to them, "You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land."

Lev 20:17 "If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.

Deu 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you. (indecent is same word for naked)

Isa 47:3 Your nakedness shall