When a difficult passage has a simple logical biblical explanation like this one we say; *"Yes!, that makes much more sense, why nobody including me could see this?!!"* Im definetely buying this Book !!
This passage makes for a good test for Bible commentaries. Most portray the scene as a simple case of schadenfreude at Noah being drunk and naked. Some mention the theories that Ham castrated Noah or had sex with him. The best explanation of the theory in this video I've seen in a commentary is in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: "the expression is an idiom for maternal incest, where (1) a father’s nakedness is an indirect way of referring to the nakedness of his wife (as in Lev 18:7), and (2) “seeing” nakedness is synonymous with “uncovering” the nakedness of a close relative to engage in sexual relations (as in Lev 20:17). So understood, Ham is guilty of having sexual relations with his mother, and this explains why a curse falls, not on himself, but on his son, Canaan, who would seem to be the child conceived of this sinful union (9:25)."
@rowdy I fully agree, and I just thought that I'd add the following to your Biblical references above for clarity. (as in Leviticus 18:7 and 8. and Genesis 9:25.)
Dr Heiser has taught this interpretation years ago on his Naked Bible podcast. The product of this unholy union was Canaan, and the reason he received the curse, not Ham.
John Bergsma and Scott Hahn published an article in the JBL in 2005 presenting the same interpretation of the relationship between uncovering the nakedness of Noah and the Cursing Canaan. This is the most persuasive explanation I've heard about explaining why it was Canaan who was cursed for what Lot did. I'm sure this book is a more expansive explanation of the pericope. I look forward to reading it.
Recently heard Sam Shamoun go over this same theory. He lays out a perfect connection between scriptures on the one flesh of marriage, the nakedness revealed, and punishments/consequences. I cannot believe I didn't make that connection before! Noah's response with such a drastic curse even onto his own next generation, only makes sense in light of "Noah's nakedness" being his own wife.
In the comments of another RU-vid video on the book of Genesis with a mixed religious-secular audience, someone had remarked that Noah cursing Canaan was really stupid, and so I responded by pointing out this interpretation. The original commenter and multiple other people emphatically said I was wrong and stupid for even suggesting it. It truly stunned me to see that some people can be so incurious and prefer to read the Bible in the most uncharitable way.
I've heard a Catholic say that's what happened; The Catholic and this guy(at least in this video) don't explain the brothers talking a blanket to cover the nakedness while looking away. I don't really have an opinion of it was nudity, raping Noah, or raping Noah's Wife. The Leviticus argument supports the Raping of Noah or Noah's Wife. But the Brothers taking a blanket and averting their eyes heavily supports the Noah just being naked, Unless there is some explanation for that.
@@DiscipleDojoI heard Robert Bowie Johnson Jr about 20 years ago talking about his book THE PARTHENON CODE (I looked at the reviews a few minutes ago and found no negative scholarly reviews and was published by a university press). It adds something to the dialogue, if it's correct, concerning the Robe. He compares it to Joseph's coat, and maybe a kings robe and says they are like mantles of authority. Rather than raping anyone, which I don't rule out, his idea is that Ham was stealing the crown, and Shem and Japheth walk backwards to show they are voting against the insurrection. It's been years since I heard this, but there is something about those types of coats, the many colors being a tapestry with the symbols or letters or lineage names like were often carved into staffs. His idea being that the Hebrew letters or proto canaanite have those shapes because they were originally woven or embroidery rather than only written. That would fit in with what you're guest is saying. Another thing that puzzles me is when it happened. Wasn't Canaan the fourth son of Ham? Here's my guess, because the giants show up in Canaan, is that Ham (in which case Hams Mother but not Noah) was infected by the watcher genes or hams wife and Canaan is the first to appear infected. Ham wants to take over for that reason. Then Noah doesn't curse Canaan but declares that Canaan is cursed i.e infected, and that's why Israel is given the land of Canaan which they are to possess when the sins infection are complete, 400 years as four generations or 40 (generations) X 10 and then the genocide is on that last generation of the infected. Anyway the story is there to explain why the Israelites are told to genocide the Giants in Canaan. Was 400 years significant genetic period? Remembering sins to the third and fourth generation? Or is the 400 added to the time from Canaan? Did the stories become confused because the language was confused at Babel? Also, Didn't BAAL take over by raping El's wife? I've also heard that like the PARTHENON CODE the Greeks are retelling the canaanite myths and reframing the ancestors as gods.
Agree with your interpretation. Maternal rape resulting in the son Canaan has the better explanatory power. I like that your statement that this is not PG-13.
I can see the merits of this line of thought - however, what I think undercuts this idea is what the other two brothers did "Shem and Japheth took the garment[h] 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[i] so they did not see their father’s nakedness." If his nakedness was being used as a euphemism for some sort of sexual misconduct, either to him or his wife, what would be the point of the other brothers going in with averted eyes and re-covering their father? What would that symbolically represent? For that reason, I'm not sure I can get on board with this interpretation.
The euphemism "fathers nakedness" is referring to Noah's wife with a sexual connotation. So after their mother was raped by their brother, Hamm, their mother laying there naked and probably in shock that her son would do such a thing, the brothers rightly don't want to see her in such a state, so they cover her (their fathers nakedness) up. Anyone should understand that. It makes perfect sense.
Noah s misadventures are memorialized in saturnalia, bachus , Dionysus and in many idols which portray him sleep and naked . Bhudda is also memorialized as sleeping in a boat
Finally, someone gets this, the Bible did answer this in Leviticus. Plus how would God curse Ham when he had blessed him! Caanan obviously produced by an unholy union.
Moreover, Noah had prior and precise instructions from God to populate the earth with his descendants. Therefore, in order to curse his son's descendants, he would have necessarily needed a valid and indisputable biblical basis. In the context of the entire scripture up to that point in Genesis, there is not a single convincing argument to consider it a serious offense for a son to see his father naked, even if he mocked his father's nakedness with disdain and ridicule. On the other hand, there are convincing arguments in Genesis against having relations with your father's wife, even if she is not your own mother."
So, how long did Ham live after the incident. Maybe Noah cursed Canaan because Ham was already dead by the time Noah woke up. What would you do if someone told you they were misusing your mother and there was no restraint on your actions?
I have a recent video up on Drunk Naked Noah. In my version I treat the story, as well as the whole Bible, as metaphor. Drunk and naked in the physical world is what you guys are trying to figure out. As analogs, drunk and naked after the flood meant feeling good off of your new life after uncovering a pain and healing from it. Stuff Trumps people don’t do. They carry pain and act it out. Nested at the core is an inward path to Buddha type peace. It’s just not called nirvana but for Hews it’s Canaan, or Christians it’s the Kingdom of Heaven within. Inner peace pathway for the few who seek is nested in supernatural stories for the masses who will never figure it out. Religion guides an evolving creature, but is now being abused and is becoming an excuse to hate and hurt in Gods name. I’m a researcher, not a theist.
I don't understand, I am using the NKJV and no females are mentioned in this at all, it only says it was Noah (Genesis 8:21-24) I have heard that the interpretation that the issue was that Ham saw his father doing something shameful and he went and gossiped about it whereas the other two sons went and took care of the father and didn't even look so in order to spare him from further shame when he sobered up
@@missmouse7639 he's saying that the phrase "his father's nakedness" is a figure of speech used to refer to Noah's wife. We see it used this way in Leviticus 18, for example.
@@DiscipleDojoLeviticus 18:7 spells out incredibly clearly that “the nakedness of the father” is, in fact, the mother’s nakedness. No interpretation is needed, it’s spelled out quite clearly. Hopefully your video will help people to understand that.
This does make sense but it doesn’t explain the brothers walking backward with a cloth placed over Noah. Curious why that wasn’t mentioned as it’s critical to the context.
@@thenexusagency under that interpretation it was because Noah was still passed out drunk in the tent where it happened and the whole situation was abhorrent, so they averted their eyes and covered them both (Noah and "his nakedness").
To be as brief as possible, Ham was an eyewitness to what his son Canaan did to his father’s wife. Leviticus 18:8 states: “The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.” Leviticus 20:11 states: “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.” Deuteronomy 27:20 states: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife; because he uncovereth his father's skirt. And all the people shall say, Amen.” So, when Noah was uncovered, that meant someone had sex with his wife. Noah cursed Canaan for having sex with his wife, because cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife.
His "own mother?" No one should assume Noah's wife is Ham's biological mother. It was probably like Reuben's sin (obviously later) and the man in the Corinthian church.
We are talking about convicting Noah's wife of sin. The evidence I have seen so for would not get beyond reasonable doubt. Where does "exposes his nakedness" come from as a euphemism? Is it a euphemism? "The two shall become one flesh". Anyone who misuses a married woman exposes her husband's nakedness. Is this the only way to expose someone's nakedness? Someone can't do it on a gym court by jerking someone's shorts down? How many years after the flood did this occur? Canaan is consistently listed as Ham's youngest son, and even if Canaan was a product of insest, it required him to be named on the day he was conceived. How do we know it was Noah's wife who bore Canaan? When was the last time Noah and his wife were together? There is not enough evidence given to justly convict Noah's wife as being druck and uncovered in her tent. This judgment is highly dependent on a "euphemism" written about in the law as being the only way to uncover a man's nakedness. You need to get better evidence. As for the severity of the curse, Ham dishonored his father, an act that would later put a person in danger of the death penalty by the Law of Moses.
@@deanfry879 no one is claiming Noah's wife was drunk. I don't think you understand what Caleb is actually saying. Maybe rewatch the video and look up the passages mentioned in Leviticus.
@@DiscipleDojo I have questioned a few people if they thought Noah's wife was drunk, and you are the first person who pushed back on that. I am familiar with the verses in Leviticus. They would make one witness in favor of an interpretation, but not the two or three required by another verse in Leviticus.
Ham trying to ursurp power by harming Noah's wife is also in line with the Serpent waiting til Wve was ALONE on the garden without Adam so he coukd tempt her-shebwas unprotected by her human husband for a moment. It also aligns with the story of Tamar who was refused her Kinsman Redeemer rights by her FIL, so she pretends to be a prostitute and tricks HIM into performing the duties himself. In thwse cases, and those you've highlighted, we see a spirit of Lawless usurparion, and there is usually a victim, BUT God turns each situation around (or WILL) and redeems each vile rebellion.
@@gabriellehoffman7572 Just a point of correction: Eve wasn't alone. Scripture says she gave some of the fruit "to her husband who was with her." The idea that she was alone comes from Milton's "Paradise Lost", which we have a video about here on the channel. :-)
Have you actually read Lev 18:7? It fully explains what’s happening with Ham and Noah and why the terms are being used. It isn’t just law - it explains what “the nakedness of the father” means.
"The law was written after the fact, that can't be it" Right, so the Geneva suggestions had nothing to do with world war 2 by that logic Edit: And further violations of the Geneva conventions before and after the law further disprove German influence on the law.
Raping one"s own mother does not make more sense than doing something twisted to one's own father. Both actions would be perverted. Noah's nakedness was not just uncovered here, Noah was covered back up. In other biblical sections where women are sexually assaulted, the woman or women involved are directly mentioned. It takes some gymnastics to make the argument that he did something to his mother, and it is a bit disturbing to entertain an argument that raping his mother is somehow a more logical transgression. Not the first time I have heard this argument. It never convinced me. A son going after a father's concubines that are not one's own mother is indeed a power play aimed at destroying one's father's power. But Noah was not a king with a harem and there were no succession rights regarding the control of a kingdom.
@@DiscipleDojoLeviticus also refers to the nakedness of one's mother and the nakedness of one's father's wife, so that would have to be as fully explored as the concept of the nakedness of one's father in order to effectively argue that the nakedness of one's father in the scene with Noah, on its own, refers to sleeping with one's mother. In Leviticus the nakedness of one's father and mother or wife are both explicitly linked and both parties' interrelated nakedness is explicitly stated. This is overtly absent with Noah. And with Noah there was direct non symbolic action to specifically cover Noah himself back up with a physical piece of material. So IMO the argument remains weak. The wife's/mother's own nakedness would have been mentioned. At the very least, IMO it would have been stated that Noah got drunk and "went into his wife" before the incident so it would be clear he was not alone. The female in question simply would not be so absent from the scene. Too much has to be read into the scene to add a female who is not mentioned when all other characters are mentioned.
@@DiscipleDojoAdditionally Leviticus states this: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness". So women a man is not married to and sleeping with also are "his nakedness". Thus a man's nakedness when linked to someone else is not just linked to his wife. So by the Levitical wording, Noah's nakedness could be his own and just his own, his wife's, his daughters and son's wives, his granddaughters. Anytime a man's nakedness is linked to someone else's, it is clearly mentioned whose nakedness that is. Noah's nakedness was probably just his own, improper in similar sense to a man's personal nakedness mentioned in Exodus 20:26 where clearly no women are involved. Noah was in his own tent, however, not exposing himself publicly, but I mention Exodus because it shows a man's nakedness can be pretty straightforward as just being his own in the OT. Ham is probably more guilty of attempting to humiliate his drunk father, not engage in explicit sexual molestation of anyone. Disrespect of this level to one's father in most of the ancient world would indeed be enough for one's father to react as severely as Noah did.
She may have been one of Noah's granddaughters/his wife since it would take time to cultivate grapes. Ham received no blessing from his father. Canaan is wiped out or amalgamated. Ham received no blessing from his father. It is important for all races to recognize. No Israelites existed yet. That is more important than Canaan's lot. It doesn't prevent Ham from blessing his own children that I know of since God blessed all equally prior to this but that is for God to deal with.
How can levitus law appy to thia aroet when noah was before leviticus and if you are applying that moses mom and dad were Aunt and Nephew and lot slept with his daughters
@@joestfrancois yep. A culture that honestly presents the wickedness in humanity instead of whitewashing it. All of your morals trace back to it, btw. 😉
I mean, we live in a similar culture. We have laws, we have people who teach laws, and we have people who blatantly ignore said laws. Don't sleep with your mom, don't kill your brother, don't take someone else's things, curses and incarceration be upon you if you fail to do this. That sounds like a problem for Israel, new Canaan, and Alabama to me
@@danielrickner7190 Dude, uh, for the record, Noah's wife did not have to be Ham's Mom. Noah had more than one wife. That those people had to be told not to do certain things gives an idea about the culture. I think it is in Leviticus where it says not to have sex with barnyard animals. Why would that be prohibited unless someone was doing it? Glad to be a 20th century American myself.
@@joestfrancois no argument from me. There is no rule that exists for no reason. I was at an orientation brief where we were instructed not to take prescriptions that did not belong to us, above or below the dosage, or alter the delivery method. Then we were instructed that no prescription medications at the facility are self administered rectally, intravenously, nasally, through the urethra, through the eye, and that attempting to claim otherwise would lead to immediate punitive action and separation from the organization. We were also briefed that attempting to manufacture chemical weapons would result in felony attempted murder charges against every person registered to be in the building.
"Curses his entire family forever." What utter nonsense. Noah did not curse the "entire family." He cursed Canaan. "Noah has a temper problem." How did this guy know that???? 1 minute in, utter rubbish.
