Once Again: The Outrage of Ham

A few months ago, during a Bible study, I discussed the remarkable story of Noah’s drunkenness (Gen. 9:20-27). What makes this story particularly remarkable is the mysterious disgrace that Ham inflicted upon Noah. The only thing the text states about it is that Ham saw his father’s nakedness. But what is shameful about that? After all, Noah had exposed himself in a drunken state, and what could Ham have done about the fact that he saw it? Or is the wrongdoing in the fact that he failed to do what his brothers subsequently did (namely, cover their father’s nakedness)?

What did Ham do to his father?

After Noah awakened from his stupor, he realized what Ham had done to him. It was a shocking realization, as it led to the curse upon Ham’s fourth son, Canaan. Canaan was declared to be “a servant of servants.” That is, extremely subordinate. This raises the question: what did Noah notice that made him curse Ham’s son Canaan for what Ham had done to him during his drunkenness? And the second question is: what did Ham’s son Canaan have to do with it? The common explanation is that Ham did nothing to his father but rather failed to do something. However, this explanation leaves entirely unanswered why Canaan, and not Ham, was cursed.

Ham saw his father’s nakedness

During the Bible study I just referred to, I proposed a rather unconventional interpretation: that Ham fathered Canaan with his mother. At first glance, this seems far-fetched, but let me once again lay out a few considerations, now supplemented with new arguments. In doing so, I also reflect on various critical remarks I received following the original presentation.

1. Noah did not expose himself in “his tent,” as most translations say, but in “her tent” (Hebrew: aholah). This Hebrew inflection is feminine in form. We also find this feminine form in Gen. 24:67, where it refers to Isaac bringing Rebekah into “the tent of his mother.” The feminine ending of ’tent’ in Gen. 9:21 suggests that Noah exposed himself in his wife’s tent.
2. The term ‘seeing nakedness’ (or ‘seeing shame’) is a well-known biblical euphemism for sexual intercourse (Lev. 20:17). It is comparable to the many euphemisms we use for sexual relations today. When we speak of ‘sleeping with someone,’ ‘sharing a bed with someone,’ or ‘having breakfast with someone,’ we generally mean more than what we literally say. The terminology is ambiguous: we can interpret it strictly literally and ‘innocently,’ but also as a subtle hint.
3. In Leviticus 18 and 20, the term ‘seeing/uncovering nakedness’ is used 24 times to denote sexual intercourse. The difference between uncovering and seeing nakedness is that uncovering (Lev. 18:6) refers to an active act by the one initiating sexual relations. Seeing nakedness (Lev. 20:17), on the other hand, is more passive and leaves open who initiated the sexual act.
4. In the case of marriage, a person’s nakedness extends beyond the individual. It also includes the nakedness of the spouse. Leviticus 18:8 explicitly states that “the nakedness of your father’s wife… is your father’s nakedness.”

Did Ham Have Relations with His Mother?

Let us consider these reflections within the context of Genesis 9:20-27. Noah, in his drunken state, undressed in his wife’s tent. Did he intend to have intercourse with her? Either way, Ham saw his father’s nakedness. As we have already seen, this can also mean that he saw his mother’s nakedness (Lev. 18:8). Moreover, it can even imply that he had intercourse with his mother (Lev. 20:17). Admittedly, the text explicitly states neither, so we must be cautious with hasty conclusions. However, according to Scripture, the expression “he saw his father’s nakedness” can certainly carry both meanings. The continuation of this story, in my opinion, strongly points in this direction.

The Reaction of Ham’s Brothers

We can only speculate about Noah’s wife’s motive. Why would she have had intercourse with Ham? Was she raped? Or, out of contempt for her drunken husband, did she allow Ham to proceed? The text does not say. What it does mention is that Ham subsequently told his two brothers that he had seen their father’s nakedness. How did they interpret this phrase? Literally and therefore innocently? There is no explicit condemnation of Ham by them in the text. The only thing Shem and Japheth do is discreetly cover their father’s nakedness.

Ham Committed an Abominable Act

Noah awoke from his stupor. He became aware of what Ham had done to him. What did he discover? And when? The text does not specify, except that he cursed Ham’s son, Canaan. This implies a causal link between Ham’s transgression and Canaan’s curse. This leads to the almost inevitable conclusion that Ham’s act of “seeing his father’s nakedness” must carry a dreadful meaning. And as we have seen, Scripture provides for such an interpretation. It was incest that Ham committed. In other words, Ham had intercourse with his mother and fathered Canaan with her. Did he seek to humiliate his father, who called him “the little one” (Gen. 9:24, literally)? Did he feel passed over because not he, but Shem, received the birthright?

Not a Son of Noah

What Ham did to his father marks a low point in Noah’s life. The flood had only recently ended, and God had blessed Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1,8). Canaan, as the half-brother of Noah’s sons, stood outside this blessing. For it was not Noah, but Ham, who was his father. Twice it is stated: Ham was the father of Canaan.

The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Ham was the father of Canaan.
-Gen. 9:18- (see also 9:22)

Illustrative

With Noah as a man of the soil and a vinedresser, “the aeon of this world” (Eph. 2:2) began with great promise. But instead of ruling over the earth, Noah proved incapable of even governing himself. He lost his dignity, and his own son “saw his nakedness.” Only Shem and Japheth honored their father and covered him with the mantle of love. In veiled terms, this illustrates Noah’s prophecy in Gen. 9:25-27.

• Canaan became a “servant of servants” and missed the Noahic blessing.
• God would attach His Name (Hebrew: Shem) to the descendants of Shem.
• God would expand the descendants of Japheth (meaning “expand”) over the whole earth.

Delen: