What is the Sin of Ham? It Might NOT Be What You Think. 

The contextual clues regarding the actions of Shem and Japheth do tend to point more towards a word for word literal interpretation (Ham simply witnessing his father while his father was drunk and naked), first there's the matter of why they were there, Shem and Japheth both went to the tent because Ham called them there to show them (exposing his father being a form of mockery and disrespect) and they walk backwards with a blanket to cover him, the walking backwards to avoid looking at him in his shameful condition indicates that it really was a matter of simply not wanting to shame him by looking at him while he was naked. It's worth noting that the first thing Adam and Eve did after eating the forbidden fruit was to cover themselves because they were suddenly aware of their nakedness and ashamed. People don't seem to think about how much significance was placed on modesty within the first few generations, Noah was a righteous man, and if any of Adam and Eve's views were passed on, exposing someone's body would have likely been seen akin to presenting their sins public setting, it would have been extremely humiliating, particularly for Noah who, from what we're told, at least tried to do everything in his power to live in a Godly manner. I think the significance of the event is lost on our present generation because it doesn't take the things of G-d seriously, and the pornagraphic culture we've made, which exalts lewdness, mocks chastity, and demeans parents, makes it very difficult for people to understand something like this through the lens of someone who cares about modesty and seeks to be dignified in the eyes of G-d and man.

This was quite the video to watch while having breakfast

If you wrote a book on apologetics, I would definitely buy it for myself, and for my family.

Then how does that fit with the rest of the story because then it says the other two brothers walked in backwards and covered Noah's nakedness?

These are my notes on Genesis 9:22 from some time ago. Hopefully this is a benefit to some. There have been many different interpretations of this passage 1. Many have explained Ham’s sin to be simply making fun of his father and laughing at him for being drunk and naked and trying to get his brothers to join in on the fun but is that really what he did? If so, why would his fourth son be cursed and made a slave. The punishment certainly doesn’t fit the crime and such a punishment seems quite severe. 2. Another interpretation is that Ham committed a homosexual act against his intoxicated father but there is nothing in the passage that indicates that this lewd act occurred. 3. Another interpretation is that Ham castrated his father. Again, nothing in the passage gives us any impression that such a violation occurred. 4. Finally the interpretation that I believe makes the most sense and is consistent with how Moses uses the term “your father’s nakedness” is that Ham committed an incestuous act against his mother, Noah’s wife resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child whom was to be named Canaan. Bear with me as I lay out this case. The Nakedness Of Your Father: Leviticus 18:7-8 NASB [7] 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. [8] You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness. This passage is clearly indicating what Noah's nakedness is; it is the nakedness of one’s father is actually the nakedness of his wife, or in this particular case, one’s mother. So what did Ham do? Did he simply just see the nakedness of his father (Noah wife, Ham’s mother) and lusted for her? Leviticus 20:11 NASB [11] If there is a man who LIES WITH his father's wife (commits a sexual act), he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. By looking at both Leviticus 18 and 20 it is clearly explaining what Ham did. Ham had incestuous relations with Noah's wife, his own mother. This makes perfect sense as to why Noah would curse Canaan (Ham’s son) and not Ham himself. Canaan was the direct result of Ham and Noah's wife, he was their offspring. If you want more proof, read all of Leviticus 18. Moses opens up this chapter with warnings to not practice the sexual acts of the Egyptians or the Canaanites. The Canaanites (Ham's descendants) are known for several sexual perversions that God lays out, and says to not practice such things. This includes: •Incest •Homosexuality •bestiality The Canaanites picked up the same sexual perversions that their ancestor Ham did to Noah's wife, his mother. Now one may object to this interpretation and say, “Ham ‘SAW’ his father's nakedness (Noah’s wife’s nakedness), and perhaps lusted after her, but nothing in the passage indicates to us that Ham acted on this lust or committed an incestuous act on his own mother, Noah’s wife. What other evidence is there to solidify this claim? Leviticus 20:17 NASB [17] 'If there is a man who takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, so that he SEES her nakedness and she SEES his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has UNCOVERED his sister's nakedness; he bears his guilt. To SEE one's nakedness is the same as UNCOVERING one's nakedness and according to Leviticus 20:11, to uncover one’s nakedness is to lie with them in a sexual way and this is what Ham is guilty of and this is why Canaan was cursed because he was the offspring of a incestuous sexual act. Moses wrote both Genesis and Leviticus, and would have no reason to contradict himself in his writings. Furthermore, God the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write these things; therefore, God would not contradict Himself or else He would be a liar. The nakedness of Israel and her harlotry: Ezekiel 16:8 NASB [8] "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 16:36-37 NASB [36] Thus says the Lord GOD, "Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered through your harlotries with your lovers and with all your detestable idols, and because of the blood of your sons which you gave to idols, [37] therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, even all those whom you loved and all those whom you hated. So I will gather them against you from every direction and expose your nakedness to them that they may see all your nakedness. Ezekiel 22:10 NASB [10] In you they have uncovered their fathers' nakedness; in you they have humbled her who was unclean in her menstrual impurity. Ezekiel 23:10,17-21 NASB [10] They uncovered her nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters, but they slew her with the sword. Thus she became a byword among women, and they executed judgments on her. [17] The Babylonians came to her to the bed of love and defiled her with their harlotry. And when she had been defiled by them, she became disgusted with them. [18] She uncovered her harlotries and uncovered her nakedness; then I became disgusted with her, as I had become disgusted with her sister. [19] Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. [20] She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [21] Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth. Ezekiel 23:29-31 NASB [29] They will deal with you in hatred, take all your property, and leave you naked and bare. And the nakedness of your harlotries will be uncovered, both your lewdness and your harlotries. [30] These things will be done to you because you have played the harlot with the nations, because you have defiled yourself with their idols. [31] You have walked in the way of your sister; therefore I will give her cup into your hand.'

It’s nice to see short form content being made for stuff like this. Very concise and not forced. You left it up to the people to decide which they think is right. I favor no.3 since it’s the Bible that interprets itself. The other 2 options seemingly force the reader to distinguish the use of nakedness in genesis vs Leviticus. And I haven’t seen any good reason as to why we ought to disconnect them. Very cool video!!

While “nakedness” is used occasionally elsewhere in the Bible to mean something other than exposing of one’s own body, the account in Genesis pretty clearly means Noah was drunk and naked and Ham behaved disgracefully towards seeing Noah naked. It says Noah “uncovered” himself, nobody else. Ham “saw” Noah’s nakedness then told his brothers. Japheth and Shem take great care to not see Noah as they took a “garment” and “covered” Noah’s nakedness. Pretty clear what happened and how it was remedied. The difficult thing for us as modern Westernized Christians and Bible readers is understanding how such a severe consequence can be brought down in someone for something we are inundated with all the time and see no reason to be upset about it. Nudity is not held as shameful in our culture whereas the Hebrews viewed it quite the opposite. God had the approach to his altar designed specifically so the Israelites would not defile it by showing their nakedness Exo 20:26. When we read difficult passages or things that don’t give us the same outrage, sadness, or joy as expressed by those in the passage, take a step back and try to immerse yourself in the culture this was written to while removing your own preconceived notions of morality

So that's why they don't eat Ham...

One of the Ten Commandments states that everyone should "Honor their father and mother". Even with a straightforward reading, what Ham did (laughing at his father while he was drunken and naked, and prompting his brothers to do the same) was a very serious disgrace against his father, and might have been worthy of his entire bloodline being cursed. I think all those other interpretatios with sexual acts are reading way too much into the text, if I am being honest. Either way, the lesson taught in the passage is pretty clear: You should never disgrace your parents.

Wow I read that plenty of times and just now thought, what did he say. Now I have to go back and look at it again. I terribly and totally missed the part of the genealogy no wonder I did not have a good understanding of it. Thanks 🙏🕊️❤️✝️

I’ve done extensive research, and the unquestioned assumption we make is that the wife of Noah is the mother of Ham. There is substantial evidence that Noah may have lost his first wife (the mother of his 3 sons) and taken a new wife at the same time as his sons, when they entered the ark. This parallels similar stories such as Reuben and Bilhah, and Absalom and David’s harem (he even erected a tent, just like in Genesis 9)

I think Ham simply saw his father literally naked and instead of helping him up just made fun of him and kicked him while he was down so to speak. For this he was cursed while the other brothers protect their father's honor.

Thank you for bringing this up! It is so rare to have people even consider maternal incest in this passage, despite the obvious other usages of "uncovering nakedness" in the OT.

The problem with the maternal incest view is that the opening verses explicitly state that Noah was the one that got drunk and became uncovered in his tent and then it says that ham saw the nakedness of his father. This means "seeing the nakedness of his father" does not refer to intercourse with his mother. The problem with the paternal incest view is that there's a verse that speaks about the other two brothers and it says that they did not see the nakedness of his father in the context of them having their faces turned. It'd be weird if "saw nakedness" means different things in the same chapter when talking about the same thing. The literal interpretation makes more sense but leaves gaps and questions in the interpretation. You could say Canaan did something to Noah since he was ham's youngest but we don't really know that since the genealogies most of the time are in order of importance. This chapter is very difficult. Edit: found another piece of the puzzle guys. Noah didn't curse Ham because God had blessed him. Though I don't know why it was specifically Canaan who was cursed. I'll update yall with the correct interpretation if I find it. Edit 2: I replied to myself with the answer to the questions I posed and answers to other questions you might ask.

Ham mocked the error of his father of getting drunk, breaking the fourth commandment: honor thy father. Has nothing to do with sex. Experience tells us that sons repeat the errors of their fathers or do worse, especially if they don't respect them. The most sure way to fall to a specific sinful habit is to mock your father doing so without realizing you carry the same weaknesses. The father is the spiritual head of a family, so disrespecting the father removes you from his spiritual protection. If we look at society, we can see that families that don't have a stable structure and where children don't have respect for the father are poorer in general. By disrespecting Noah, Ham has set a bad spiritual example that his children will repeat against himself which is why is posterity is cursed. As to why it was such a big deal, well who wouldn't be completely humiliated to have someone mock you while you lie naked unconscious, especially if you're as modest and scrupulous as Noah was.

This was fun to hear alternative ideas. I have never heard any of the ideas that aren’t the plain reading of the text, but it’s interesting to hear them. I would love more content along these lines. There are lots of stories where it’s like “I wonder why he did that??” Thanks!!

I was actually looking into this recently, as I was studying Leviticus. I had come to the same as the third conclusion. Thanks for the video!

In the Afrikaans translation is reads "Gam, die pa van Kanaän, het gesien sy pa is kaal en het dit buite vir sy twee broers gaan vertel." "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked and went outside to tell his brothers about it." The implication is that he was ridiculing his father's drunken state and nakedness. I'd be very careful of reading things in texts that simply aren't there.

“6 'None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. 7 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. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness”. (Leviticus 18:6, NASB)

I think we can only speculate. These are great insights. I can't wait to be in heaven, and Hear it from Jesus Himself. There is many mysteries in the Bible like this that we can but only speculate on, but the good news is none of them are necessary to know the answer to for salvation. It does say that He is the way the truth and the life. He also says to earnestly seek Him. So we are to keep seeking the truth in matters such as this, but the word also says don't get caught up in vein genealogies. So heart posture is important when meditating upon mysteries such as this. Neat subject though. I have wondered about this verse as well and have tried to word study on it, but did not come up with as in depth of a conclusion as this guy. Thank you Mr. Red Pen Logic.

The case that is made for the 3rd scenario sounds the most probable to me. Thank you for breaking that down and it is something I definitely scratched my head about.

I totally have never heard any of these views. I seriously thought the curse was just for openly mocking his father, Kind of like “hey look dads drunk and naked!”

levitcus 18- 4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God. 5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord. 6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord. 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

I remember when I first learned #3 years ago. It sounds crazy, but is probably the best explanation.

Thank you so much for this! I was wondering about this passage for SO long and what you said corroborated some research I had done on my own but wasn't sure about. I would LOVE it if you did more videos like this

The problem with the more salacious understanding is that it doesn't make sense of the rest of the account. If "uncovered his nakedness" means something akin to having relations with either Noah or his wife, then the rest of the account (Ham telling his brothers and them walking in backwards to cover Noah's nakedness) is nonsensical, unless the latter is also some idiom since lost. Whereas, if Ham simply saw his father naked and mocked him for it (perhaps joked about it with his brothers), then the reaction of the two older brothers makes more sense in context too.

Genesis 9: 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God had blessed Noah and his sons; Noah could not curse what God had blessed. Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. Gen 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; The Bible says: Gen 9:18 And the (("SONS")) of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. Three sons went on to Ark; FOUR SONS CAME OFF THE ARK The writer was telling the reader who the father of the forth son was! son H1121 Strong's numbers_ H&G Dictionary From H1129; a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, ((including "GRANDSON")), subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., Canaan was born during the flood and came off the Ark and was classed as the youngest son of Noah. 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. Ham was not Noah's youngest son! He was the second. Shem was the youngest of Noahs sons; Japheth was the elder; Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. Follow the line of Canaan and you know Noah cursed the right person! Gen 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, Gen 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, Gen 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, Gen 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. Gen 10:19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. Looking at Exo 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. The curse of Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan. One might see how Exo.34:7 followed Canaan's children to Sodom & Gomorrah,

The problem with that theory is vs 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." (KJV Genesis 9:23) it doesn't really work with the theory the sin was son mother relationship.

Ham saw his dad naked and drunk mocked him, then when Noah found out he angrily “cursed” his grandson. This is basically a cautionary tale, it’s not about incest but it is about dishonoring a parent.

Wow! I kept saying "Wow!" throughout this video. Excellent interpretations. Now I'm going to go to my fellow Christians (Dad and brother) who are ardent students of the Bible, and get their take on this. Thanks!

Wait... What about the fourth interpretation (and only one I had so far) of this passage: That he saw (perceived that) his dad was in shame and then SPREAD the fact (humiliated him, ruined his reputation, increased the shame, gossip). Jesus teaches us that when we see a brother has commited a mistake, we are to tell him (solve it) personally, and not spread it further. Wouldn't this be a better paralel?

Why can't it just be what it says? Ham saw Noah naked and rather than cover him up or ask for help covering him up, he told his brothers. Noah was mad at that and cursed Canaan instead of Ham. Why do we always have to try and find the profound answer to everything? God told us what He felt was necessary to tell us.

The only claim of this sort that I heard from a Mormon was that Ham had sex with Noah which doesn't bear out in the text. I have always interpreted this to mean that he didn't honor his father in his drunken state where he was found naked and his other son did. Everyone seems to want to make it about sex though.

Leviticus 18:7 is a Metaphorical/Allegorical/Symbolism of the word "NAKEDNESS" which means INCEST... and not a literal "NAKEDNESS or NUDE" Person, which means literally without clothes... In the case of NOAH, it was narrated that he "literally" planted a VINEYARD and got "literally" DRUNK from the Fruits of the "literal" WINE that caused him to "literally" UNCOVERED (Naked/Nude) in his tent... That was the reason why Shem and Japeth "literally" got a BLANKET and "literally" WALKED backward so as not to see the "literal" NAKEDNESS of NOAH (ref. Genesis 9:20-23)... This ACT was a gesture or sign of "literal" RESPECT and HONOR to their human father (Noah) as well as the Prophet of God... HAM "literally" SAW the "literal" NAKEDNESS of his father (Noah), and had done literally NOTHING to cover him up with Robe or Blanket, but instead told his brothers... in those DAYS that was a Shameful ACT of MOCKERY to their Parents most especially as the Prophet of God... It was narrated that upon knowing what HAM had done at that moment when Noah woke up, Noah "literally" CURSED Ham's son CANAAN... (ref. Genesis 9:24-25)... therefore, CANAAN already literally EXISTED even before the EVENT had happened, logically speaking with some common sense... Canaan can not come from Noah's Wife... ALL these written NARRATIVE EVENTS that had happened in Genesis 9:20-25 were ALL LITERAL EVENT SCENES... If we base the word NAKEDNESS (Incest) on the LAW written in Leviticus 18:7, the punishment should surely put HAM and Noah's WIFE to DEATH... (ref. Leviticus 20:11-21)... Why CURSE Ham's son, CANAAN?... it seems UNFAIR, but if the CURSE falls on HAM, the curse cease/stop with him when HAM dies... while if the curse was from Ham's son, CANAAN.., Noah's Prophecy will be fulfilled that HAM's Descendants will be the SERVANTS of the Descendants of Shem and Japeth... God visits the INEQUITY of their Human Fathers (Parents) upon their CHILDREN up to 3rd to 5th Generations. (ref. Deuteronomy 5:9)... We do not need the I.Q. of Einstein or Tesla to understand and comprehend this matter... unless we have CLOSED Hearts and Minds, that NO REASON is POSSIBLE other than what we believe in... or perhaps we have a very slow poor low I.Q. kind of person... Facts and Truth, Biblically and Logically speaking with some common sense... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

Thank you for offering this interpretation! This seems to make a little more sense.

I'm not a master in hermeneutics, but I'm pretty sure Ham just saw his father drunk and naked, making a fool of himself and mocked him for it. Then Noah cursed Ham's entire family line in his drunken rage. Love that you're making videos about this stuff though. I'd love to see some analysis of the weird and messed up stories in Judges or a video about the Nephilem.

This is very interesting, and you bring up some valid points. 🤔 I never thought to much on this. Very interesting...I’ll have to revisit Genesis 9 Great video. 👍🏼

Genesis 9:20-24 NET [20] Noah, a man of the soil, began to plant a vineyard. [21] When he drank some of the wine, he got drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. [22] Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers who were outside. [23] Shem and Japheth took the garment 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 so they did not see their father's nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.

Guess in that context it was literally just seeing nakedness, because it's written then that other two brothers walked backwards and covered his father with the blanket.

The idiom as you quoted from leviticus is uncovering nakedness. This is not what genesis describes of Ham, it uses a different verb saw. The trouble of Canaan being cursed is not a problem when you understand that Hebrew thought accepted regularly that children suffer and carry the guilt of their ancestor's sins.

I do have more questions now, but it does in a way make more sense now too. Thank you brother!

In my 2 decades as a Christian, this is my 1st time hearing the 2nd and 3rd possible scenarios. I have been reading this portion quite literally. Ham saw his father naked and told his brothers instead of trying to cover up his father right away. Which explains why his brothers had to cover up their father. Of cos' this doesnt explain why Ham's son was cursed instead. Which made the 3rd scenario plausible to me. Standing on the fence now btw a literal view vs a maternal incestuous view. Mental filing this case as a question to ask Jesus when He comes to take me home.

Very interesting. Though I disagree, I respect the views laid out in the video. Imo, a lot has to be inferred into the text to not see it for what it is when read plainly. He saw his father naked, he acted dishonorably, his brothers walked backwards to cover him. Yes, indeed, it did cost Ham A LOT. I don’t see why this surprised anyone. We see what happens when people neglect the smallest things. Esau’s birthright was forfeited over food, Moses struck a rock and was reprimanded severely, Ananias dropped dead immediately for lying to the Holy Spirit.

And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent....how does this magically become Noahs' wife ?

Correct. Excellent job going through the options and settling on the one that makes the most sense. One addition: a lot of people seem to think it can't be the maternal one because then you potentially have "saw/ didn't see nakedness" used in two different ways. But in Romans 9:6 Paul uses the word "Israel" in 2 different ways in the very same sentence, once to mean physically and the other to mean spiritually. And since Moses wrote both leviticus and Genesis then how he defined it in leviticus is very important context.

Unexplained mysteries in Scripture are a great gift. They are invitations to go 'further up and further in' by Him who takes pleasure in concealing a matter and revealing it to those who love the Truth enough to seek it out. The temptation to camp out in a particular conclusion is a dangerous trap. Since Scripture defines what it means to 'uncover thy father's nakedness', as Mr. B laid out so well, that part is not a mystery. Yes, Canaan is accursed because he is the offspring of Ham's union with his mother (almost certainly via intoxicated rape). The deeper layer is in how this ties in with the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen 6 Sons of God and Nephilim narrative), which very few of us learned about growing up in Church, even though it's plain as day in Scripture. Of course, if the seed of the serpent want to conceal themselves one would expect them to perpetuate the lie that we're "all the same", even though Scripture clearly states otherwise. "Let them grow up together" (Matt. 13) shows that the wheat and tares are appointed to grow up together until the harvest (the resurrection), and it was through Ham/Canaan that the seed of the serpent was preserved through the flood for God's purposes. Ham's partaking of such abomination is an intentional following in the ways of the serpent seed - the ways of corruption/perdition/destruction. The Elect need to re-learn that which has gone before us (but been concealed/forgotten), because our Lord told us that such days were returning and we have entered into that time folks.... Blessings!

Not sure if this is something you've been doing but I think this is a great angle for the channel to take- we're still getting short form Mr B explanations but it's not just limited to some online nonsense. Keep up the good work!

Ham definitely slept with his mom in a way to become Head of the family. I stayed on this story the first time I read Genesis for awhile and that was my conclusion. Noah’s wife also was never mentioned in the Bible again after that. I think it happened like this. Noah got drunk and tried have intercourse with his wife then fell asleep from being so drunk. Then Ham comes in and sees him passed out but sees his mother naked. He tells the brothers there is an opportunity there to become head of house. Brothers refuse but Ham goes and gets intimate with his mom and then Noah wakes up to see what happened.

Had to repost this because some self-proclaimed pastor is stalking me trying to force me to believe in his ways and hates that I don't agree with him.... some pastor right...? I always interpreted as: "Instead of covering his father's nakedness, he went out and bad mouthed his father to his 2 brothers and possible their wives. The 2 brothers did not... they instead honored the father by walking in backwards, covered their father's nakedness, and left." 1. It clearly did say he went and tell his 2 brothers that Noah was naked right after that verse. 2. If he told the brothers, surely their wives was around... shaming Noah in front of his sons and his daughters in law 3. Please note that he is shaming the man that saved the last remnant of humanity - the man chosen by God. Personally I still stand with this view.

1. Leviticus 18 talks about “uncovering” someone's nakedness. Ham simply “saw” his father's nakedness. 2. How would you metaphorize Shem & Japheth laying a garment on their shoulders, walking in backwards, and covering their father's nakedness? 3. If Ham slept with his mom and Canaan was the product, how is he already born when Noah comes to?

This is great! Please make many more of these. 🙏

Yep, Dr Heiser has covered this a few years ago on his Naked Bible podcast.

When one reads this part of the story, Genesis 9: 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were [k]turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, “Cursed be Canaan; [l]A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.” Noah did not curse Ham. so therefore, Ham did not have a sexual relationship with his father. Ham went outside and told his two brothers. Obviously this was to entice them to join him (Ham) into making fun of Noah. If anything, Ham was making fun of his father for getting drunk and being naked. This did not have anything to do with Ham watching his father have sex with his wife either. The text says that because Noah got drunk and passed out, so that means that Noah just passed out. Ham did not have sex with his mother either. That would have resulted in Ham being banished from the family. This would have been a heinous crime. If any of the aforementioned scenarios would have happened, then Ham would have been cursed and not Caanan. The sins of the father would not have been given to the son for this. From the text it is implied that when Ham went to get his brothers there was a time gap between when he found them and when Shem and Japheth covered Noah. Within that time gap there was a sufficient amount of time for Cannan, the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah to have homosexual relations with Noah. Therefore, the curse was on Caanan and not Ham.

I am so glad that the TRUTH is finally being revealed to those who are truly seeking it. Yes, Ham having intercourse with his mother is the ONLY explanation to be determined by the text. WHY? Because Noah knew that his wife would conceive and bear another child through the act of intercourse with Ham. Which is why he knew that GOD would curse the offspring of Ham and his mother. And ALL the generations that followed that lineage through the bloodline. Your follow up by way of Lev. 18 explains it clearly. Because the earth had just received a cleansing of ALL sin by way of the flood, Satan once again needed to find a way to re-enter into the hearts, minds, and souls of MAN. Make sense?

This takes a little thought, but it does track! I've never thought of it this way until you mentioned the "nakedness of Noah" which made me think of Leviticus 18:7 about "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father,...she is your mother". The only concession here is that Shem, Ham, and Japheth would not be able to control themselves around any naked woman (even though they had wives of their own). This isn't much different from Lot and his daughters though.

Awesome, great stuff , keep this new avenue open and I appreciate the quick appraisals, God Bless you

It's not sex. It's like the pointing out of baldness in a later text; it's about looking for flaws in parents, whether your biological father and mother or your godparents in the Church. The problem is not that he saw his father naked, it's that he disrespected his father by looking and immediately telling others.

Dude, I'm just trying to enjoy my taco bell at lunch and you go into this lol love the videos!

I’ve seen this debate before. I find the first/traditional view the most convincing, for reasons given by many in the comments already-mostly having to do that it is the most natural, straightforward reading of ALL the details given in the passage. The only advantage given by the third interpretation is a clear reason why Canaan would be cursed, but I don’t think that alone is sufficient to carry that interpretation. It could simply be, for instance, that Noah cursed Canaan because it was the worst punishment he could think of for Ham (maybe Canaan was Ham’s firstborn or most beloved son). The passage also suggests that Noah knew who Canaan was at the time he awoke from his drunkenness, and speaks of Ham as though he was already Canaan’s father at the time he committed his sin (though I admit that, at least in English, it is not clear). A few other points I’d like to make:(1) just because something can be a euphemism (I.e. “saw his father’s nakedness”) doesn’t mean it is in fact euphemism. (2) the writers of the Bible, including Genesis, aren’t shy about the gory details of history. A few chapters later, we read about the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape angels, followed by Lot’s two daughters committing incest with him. There is no euphemism used there. Why should we expect it here, rather than the plain meaning? (3) I think it’s easy to be allured by the idea that we’ve found a new and “secret” meaning to the text, especially if it’s an edgy meaning like this. It can cause us to be biased toward an interpretation that isn’t as strong as we think it is. I’ve seen people fall into the same trap with the serpent seed doctrine, which is utter nonsense. Finally (4) granted, a clear emphasis of the passage is that Ham is Canaan’s father. I don’t think this is an origin story for Canaan so much as the story behind why he is cursed. Canaan was a traditional enemy of Israel, as were Edom, Ammon, and Moab. Genesis introduces all of these characters and why Israel has issues with each of them. That’s all this passage is trying to convey-that Canaan is rightfully the servant of Israel because Noah cursed him. In the end, I don’t think it’s all that important. Thanks, Mr. B for your work.

To uncover your "father's nakedness" is to sleep with your mother. Leviticus 18:7-16; Leviticus 20:11-21. The reason the passage keeps telling us that Canaan is Ham's son is because Noah's wife was Canaan's mother. That is the reason Canaan receives the negative prophecy, it is the opposite of what Ham intentions were for his son. Ham tried to usurp his father's authority by his actions, it didn't work. The other son's were extra careful when covering the person because they didn't want to see their mom naked.

I'm so glad I saw this video. We just talked about this in my Patreon community. The conclusion I came to was that the text is as it is presented but the commentaries suggest that it was Ham's attitude and way of living that was the problem. I still have no solid answers on this, but I'm sticking with the commentary's explanation for now!

Here's a more interesting point from a practical standpoint. Many churches today have communion with grape juice instead of wine. They say that it is because in the past wine did not actually have much alcohol. But if Noah got drunk, it certainly wasn't because he was drinking Welches grape juice.

I've actually been wondering about this passage for a while. I'm a nudist, and I can't find any biblical reason to believe simple nudity is wrong, but this passage has always tripped me up because I don't know how to interpret it. A common interpretation is that Ham sinned simply by seeing Noah's naked body, but I think your interpretation is more interesting, and probably more accurate, because you're reading it in the context of everything else, rather than interpreting it at a surface level.

I'm not one for leaving comments, but one thing I wanna add is that in Genisis 9 verse 1 it says "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." What God has blessed no man can curse. Noah knowing this, he cursed Ham's son Canaan and not Ham himself.

I agree with this video, considering a number of things, mainly: 1. It should be noted that both Genesis and Leviticus are written by Moses, so his use of the euphemism, "saw his father's nakedness," would have similar meanings; 2. Ham would not be the only person to challenge his father's authority by having incestuous relations with his father's wives/concubines. King David's son Absalom deliberately did this to undermine King David; 3. Punishing Canaan as if he were the consequence of an abomination would make sense, so he would see fit to curse Canaan, and ignore Ham; 4. Canaan was obviously not present at the time of the misdeed of his father, Ham. He definitely wasn't mentioned at that time. So it's very likely that Canaan is the result of this sin. An apologetic, by the name of Sam Shamoun, breaks down the matter in detail.

I did a Bible study on Genesis 1-11 and if I remember correctly there is an interpretation from the mid-rash (A Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible from the 2nd century) that also believes that to see the nakedness on ones father is to castrate their father. This explains how Noah knew that he had been seen naked, and explains why he cursed his son as his son took away his ability to have more kids. There is a chiastic literary poem between the creation story and the story of the flood and Noah. The coinciding stories line up in the rivers of Eden and the kids of Noah, however Noah is missing is 4th kid in which there is the least description in the creation story. This coincides more with the first interpretation offered in the video but again it is one belief of many. Regardless of what happened this does show the importance of culture and how as westerners we need to put more effort into learning eastern culture and literature

I am confused. Gen 9:23, 24 "Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness (other versions say "they would not see their father naked"), When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,..." Why couldn't it literally have been Noah naked in his tent? It is normal for fathers to give blessings on their death bed and he was still mad so he cursed Ham's firstborn.

"When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” Noah cursed Canaan right after he woke up. If Ham had just plowed his own mom they wouldn't have even known she was pregnant at that point; Noah wouldn't have known that his wife was pregnant and wouldn't have known the name of the kid who was theoretically conceived just hours previous. The Bible also isn't shy about calling out incest. It's blunt in other areas of Genesis, so it can't even be because of a different author; it's in the same book.

2:20 the author is Moses btw

There is a lot that is not said in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. I've actually concluded this theory myself probably 6 months ago while reading through this story. What I have a tendency to see here is the continuous problems with Canaan, and really even the other sons of Ham that go on really even through today. We see giants came about in this area which reflects back to Genesis 6:1-4 when it says the nephilim were there then and afterwards. So I can't help but think something more occurred with Ham and his father's nakedness. Especially with the curse being on Ham's son instead of Ham. But Genesis is vague and we probably won't know until we reach completion. Until then, it's not a salvation issue and be encouraged to stay reading your Bible and let he Holy Spirit guide you. Always stay focused on Jesus. Bless you all, and walk in grace as we encounter or brothers and sisters.

Noah said "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25) on goes on to say" He also said, “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Son of Ham, Kaanan is nephew to Shem and Japeth. But Noah says they are also his brothers. (Gen. 9:25) The only way they can be a uncles AND brothers is if Ham slept with Noah's wife/his mother.

Take note: The Original Hebrew-Aramaic Word used for Nakedness in Leviticus 18:7 is "ER VAT."... while the Original Hebrew-Aramaic word used for Nakedness in Genesis 9:22, is "ER WAT."... and NOT the same in CONTEXT and MEANING... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

My wife and had this question probably 10 years ago. If you look at Jewish tradition Ham, who married a Canaanite woman which meant that his line was not allowed to hold the Priesthood, tried to steal Noah’s priesthood garments. These garments according to Jewish lore were the same garments given to Adam in the garden and passed down to whoever was the reigning priesthood holder on the earth. Ham knowing that through his disobedience his line would be cursed thought to steal the garment which he believed would give his posterity the priesthood of God. This is why Cainan who was Ham’s son was cursed and not Ham. If you look at early Egyptian culture it was similar to the priesthood of God. He tried to emulate what his father was doing he just did not have the authority to do so.

I am STUNNED more pastors don't preach on this passage.

There's also another option. Inserting Canaan in the story is an etiology (retcon origin story) to explain how it was justified for the Hebrews returning from Exodus to conquer the land of the Canaanites.

Ooof. Someone needs to do a Red Pen Logic video on how bad this Red Pen Logic video is. "Uncovering nakedness" *can* be a euphemism, but often is not. And this is a different verb here. Ham "saw" the nakedness of his father. And in verse 22, Noah uncovered himself. This isn't self-stimulation, either, because Ham goes in *after* this happens. Why would Ham have sex with Noah's wife *while Noah is in the tent*? Why wouldn't you do it while Noah is away? Because you think it's safer to hope Noah doesn't wake up (assuming he was passed out) in the middle of what you're doing, or maybe he's awake and you're hoping he doesn't remember? It makes no sense. They walk backwards and cover Noah's nakedness. This makes it sound like it's literally about seeing Noah naked. There's no reason to think it was a sexual gaze that Ham held. His father was an old man and probably wasn't looking all that appealing passed out drunk. However, mocking the indignity of his father and bringing him to open shame by not only not revering him enough to turn his head, but then running to tell his brothers about their father's shame, is a great example of dishonoring your father. There's no reason to have difficulty with Canaan being cursed. The tribes of Israel are blessed or cursed based on their tribal fathers' behavior. The most plain reading of the text is the reading that also has no difficulty and doesn't require any importation of external ideas or trying to stretch language. I have no idea why you wouldn't stick with the plain, obvious, problemless reading. This was a bad video.

very interesting theories but I think there is a 4th one. The clues are in the words themselves. First issue is that there is no curse on Ham or curse of Ham. It's the curse of Canaan. Which from a literal reading of the text implies that it was Canaan that did something he shouldn't. Secondly, Ham is assumed to be the youngest son. Most of the time (not always) children are written in birth order Gen 6:10; 7:13; 9:18. Shem was the eldest, Ham was the second and Japheth was the youngest. again, if you check the Hebrew rendering of the word 'son' it can also mean grandson or descendant. Canaan was Ham's youngest son. I believe it was Cannan that uncovered his father's nakedness either with Noah or his wife. otherwise, Ham's other children should be cursed too. They weren't and neither was Ham. Ham of course did wrong by seeing the nakedness of Noah and reporting it instead of covering it, which is a lesson in itself! If you read the text carefully, Ham missed out on a generational blessing as Noah blessed Shem and Japheth but said nothing to Ham. For me this more suits the reading of the text otherwise Canaan was just picked on for no reason, except for theory 3 maybe.

Very intriguing as always brother!

Just came across this video today. The funny thing is, I had been wondering about this very thing a few weeks ago, and had done some research into it. The sources that I came across had the same views, as well as a couple of others.

Wow! I never thought of the last one! Great video bro 😎 thanks so much 😊

I think we also have to take in the context of Moses writing a history of the Israelites and why they are inheriting the land of Canaan. The Canaanites are vomited from the land for their evil (Leviticus 18:27), and this seems to be tied to that prophetically.

I think we get hung up on the curse of Canaan and take it to be a curse for the act of Ham. The curse was that he (his nation) was to be a servant to his brethren. This came to pass, but it was in answer to the sins of that people that they became servants to the Israelites. It did not happen in the lifetime of Canaan himself. I wonder if this was simply a prophetic utterance on the part of Noah rather than a curse that God would enforce on Noah's behalf.

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

The other aspect of why Ham could have slept with his mother or as I propose his step mother is that she was contaminated from the Gen 6 incident and Noah was too old. she was his second wife, so no offspring could come from her and Noah due to his age, but with Ham then sleeping with her the offspring was contimanate and we see the Nephilim re-emerge through the line mainly of Canaan - the Zanzumin and the Raphaim etc. Which is another explanation of why they had to wipe out the Canaanites.

In verse 21 the set-up for what follows is that he lays uncovered in his tent. That would be an unnecessary thing to mention if he was not the direct object of his son's sin. If Canaan was already born then the curse on Ham would miss his primary heir, Jacob blesses Joseph's sons instead of Joseph because his heirs were born already. That said, I do love your videos and presentation style. Please keep makin' 'em and so glorifying our God.

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Genesis 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Genesis 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. Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. He slept with his father’s wife but she is not his mother. Canaan is their offspring. If she were his mother it would have said her nakedness. If he slept with his father he would of been put to death: Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Excellent idea for a series, RPL!!

Objectivity over subjectivity, we focus too much on the subject and we forget what the verse is teaching us, 1. Consequences of Alcohol 2. Consequences of sin( be it incest or seeing his fatherr actual nakedness) 3.Power of the tongue(with it we can curse and with it we can bless) We will never understand everything in the Bible, there are reasons why God hid somethings from us, let's not get lost, remember man's knowledge is foolishness to God.

Actions of shem and japheth in the succeeding verses eliminates the other two views since it describes that Noah's nakedness is literal

Dr. Michael Heiser held the third view and made a compelling case for it.

Nicely done study on this scripture! I had heard the first two concepts before but I did not realize the language could lead to the possibility that Ham may have had relations with his mother. Very interesting. Thanks for this video!

No, I don't buy it. In my opinion, Ham only saw the nakedness and made fun of it in front of his brothers. Everything else would've been punishable by death. Also later, when his brothers come in, they turn their heads away, "as to not see the nakedness of their father". This would not have been necessary if they just didn't want to rape him or their mother. Even though the expression is often used in a sexual context, I don't think that this is the case here.

While not one of the popular views, another interpretation I've heard from some people in a traditional Jewish background is that Ham castrated his father. The central idea here is that after Noah and his family leave the ark, God tells Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply (same as Adam and Eve in the garden) thereby implying that Noah is supposed to continue having children. When Noah gets drunk and Ham looks upon his nakedness, Ham removes Noah's ability to further God's command and blessing to the family. This would explain how Noah new what Ham had done when he woke up. The older sons would have been the ones to attend to their father (covering up meaning to seal up a wound) and would explain why Noah curses Canaan in a rage. Castration would have been seen as an attempt to usurp Noah's position and take the role of the dominant male rather than the firstborn son. So Noah curses Canaan to shut down Ham's attempt to usurp the traditional order. Again, this is just another view that fills in some different pieces of the puzzle. I'm not saying that I'm entirely convinced of the argument, but it's an interesting position to meditate on. It also fits with the theme of sons trying to take their father's role/position (David's son Absalom, the sons of Aaron bringing fire into the tabernacle which was only the role of the high priest, etc). But overall, the dialog of all of these different interpretations seems to be part of the point of the story since it forces us to consider multiple motivations and outcomes. I think it's intentionally ambiguous.

Well these feel like details I was better off not digging too deep into

I thought I’d look up what Josephus’ account was of this event, in his ‘Antiquities of the Jews”.. it says this “ Noah, when after the deluge, the earth was resettled in its former condition, set about its cultivation; and when he had planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes in their season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered sacrifice and feasted and being drunk, he fell sleep naked in a unseemly manner. When his youngest son saw this, he came laughing and showed him to his brethren, but they covered their father’s nakedness. And when Noah was made sensible of what had been done. He prayed for prosperity to his other sons; but for Ham, he did not curse him, by reason of his nearness in blood, but his posterity. And when the rest of them escaped the curse, God inflicted it on the children of Canaan. But as to these matters, we shall speak more hereafter.” So that’s interesting. I Havnt found the piece where he talks more about this yet.

Sanhedrin 108b.15 The Sages taught: Three violated that directive and engaged in intercourse while in the ark, and all of them were punished for doing so. They are: The dog, and the raven, and Ham, son of Noah. The dog was punished in that it is bound; the raven was punished in that it spits, and Ham was afflicted in that his skin turned black. For those wondering why this curse is thought to be the reason why slavery was found okay in Christian nations. The only reference is in the jewish talmud

Thanks for the insight. Makes so much sense. I'm thinking it's the 3 one.

The proponents of the latter two views tend to ignore this verse (as it was passed over in the video): “Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.” If the crime was Ham having sex with Noah or Noah’s wife, why this emphasis on literally not looking at Noah naked? It seems like, in this case, the crime was literally looking at Noah naked.

Well done video. But I miss the red pen. But of course you are not going to make mistakes in your own videos ;) again, nicely done!

Why curse the descendants if the descendants didnt commit the crime ? Ezekiel 18: 19:23- The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.