Does Ham Get a Bad Rap?

[Timothy]

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 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.
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.

The typical interpretation of this passage is that Ham did something wrong, to varying degrees, based on the particular interpretation. For example, Ham is accused of some type of sexual sin, or Ham is accused of "bragging" to his brothers, etc. Until recently, this was my position as well (that Ham was guilty of "something"), but I've recently begun to rethink that position. Without reading anything "into" the passage that is not explicitly there, what do we know for sure?

FACT: Ham is the middle son of Noah.

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth:

FACT: Canaan is the youngest son of Ham.

Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

FACT: Canaan is specifically named in the account, and is the only son of Ham named in the account.

Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

FACT: The phrase of uncovering your father's nakedness is elsewhere used figuratively as refering to sleeping with your father's wife.

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Deu 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

FACT: In scripture, the terms "son" and "father" can refer to grandson and grandfather.

FACT: Those that "uncovereth his father's skirt" (sleep with his father's wife) are to be cursed.

Deu 27:20 Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.

FACT: Canaan, the (grand) son, is the only person cursed in the account.

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

If the account is carefully read based on the above facts and without the pre-conceived interpretations, it is quite plausible that Canaan slept with Noah's wife. No where does it explicitly indicate that Ham did anything wrong, etc.

[antitox]

The way I see it is that Ham was simply making fun of dad and his nakedness. These people had certain beliefs and honor when it came to a patriarch - especially a major no-no about being exposed.

It was offensive.

When I was growing up I had alot of respect for my parents, particularly my dad. And I certainly never did anything to belittle him in public or private. And if I had, I feared the resulting punishment.

[sandylion]

Supposing that what the above says is true, then if Ham slept with his mother, and his mother got pregnant with Canaan that would indeed place a curse on him alone for something his father did. Canaan would be not only Ham's son but his brother also. Ewwww! :panic Disgusting!

It doesn't say that, but it could be the issue is resolved by that interpretation. Ham's wife could have been the mother of the first three of his sons, but Canaan could have been a result of the sin of Ham sleeping with his own mother, thus "uncovering the nakedness of his father".

[Rondaben]

Thanks for the post!

I think that when we read scripture and there is a clear, obvious meaning of the text we do well to read it as such. Let me explain.

Gen 9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Gen 9:23 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.
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.

The simple reading of the scripture tells us that Noah was drunk and that as he lay in his tent his cloak had come off exposing him. It is clear that Ham is the one that discovered Noah in this state. Instead of covering his father he went and told his brothers about Noah's disgraceful state. Shem and Japheth did the right thing in covering up their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke and discovered what had happened. His curse befell Canaan, the youngest son of Ham.

The question is why? I believe the answer lies within the immediate context of the scripture and also this is established as a type. Remember that this is the first prophecy proclaimed by a man and establishes a type that follows throughout the entire bible.

Gen 9:1 states that God had blessed Noah and his sons. Looking at the previous history of Noah he would not have been likely to have cursed that which God had blessed--thereby setting him in opposition to the will of God. Instead, he chose to curse his posterity in Canaan. The choice of who Noah cursed is significant.

Canaan was the youngest, and arguably the favorite, son of Ham. Most instances younger siblings were not mentioned or were insignificant. Verse 22 points out Canaan expilcitly, signifying a special relationship between the two.
2. Inheritance and leadership within the family passed from the Father to the Son. Had he cursed Cush, the eldest, he would have been in essence cursing his entire family.


Noah's practice of blessing and cursing children plays out again repeatedly in scripture. Look at the Patriarchs and you will see it happening over and over. It is interesting to also see how this had a near/far prophetical significance. The curse would have immediate ramifications within the next few generations. The decendants of Ham settled predominantly in Africa. Those peoples, to this day, still endure the curse of servitude (slavery) to this day and have been victimized with it's practice since the days of this curse.

[Doulos]

Thanks for the post!

I think that when we read scripture and there is a clear, obvious meaning of the text we do well to read it as such. Let me explain.



The simple reading of the scripture tells us that Noah was drunk and that as he lay in his tent his cloak had come off exposing him. It is clear that Ham is the one that discovered Noah in this state. Instead of covering his father he went and told his brothers about Noah's disgraceful state. Shem and Japheth did the right thing in covering up their father's nakedness.

When Noah awoke and discovered what had happened. His curse befell Canaan, the youngest son of Ham.

The question is why? I believe the answer lies within the immediate context of the scripture and also this is established as a type. Remember that this is the first prophecy proclaimed by a man and establishes a type that follows throughout the entire bible.

Gen 9:1 states that God had blessed Noah and his sons. Looking at the previous history of Noah he would not have been likely to have cursed that which God had blessed--thereby setting him in opposition to the will of God. Instead, he chose to curse his posterity in Canaan. The choice of who Noah cursed is significant.

Canaan was the youngest, and arguably the favorite, son of Ham. Most instances younger siblings were not mentioned or were insignificant. Verse 22 points out Canaan expilcitly, signifying a special relationship between the two.
2. Inheritance and leadership within the family passed from the Father to the Son. Had he cursed Cush, the eldest, he would have been in essence cursing his entire family.


Noah's practice of blessing and cursing children plays out again repeatedly in scripture. Look at the Patriarchs and you will see it happening over and over. It is interesting to also see how this had a near/far prophetical significance. The curse would have immediate ramifications within the next few generations. The decendants of Ham settled predominantly in Africa. Those peoples, to this day, still endure the curse of servitude (slavery) to this day and have been victimized with it's practice since the days of this curse.

I agree, but in addition the reason why Canaan may be specifically mentioned is because that is who the nation of Israel was on its way to do battle with and displace in the land that was given to Abraham at the time this was written. It may be that the other sons were cursed as well without biblical mention because it was not relevant.