# I think I believe in the maternal-incest view of Ham's sin



## Pergamum (Jun 18, 2018)

It seems weird that Ham would only be cursed for seeing his dad naked. And...correction..it was not even Ham but his son that was cursed (though Ham was also cursed with having his son cursed..any father would feel cursed if his actions caused his son to be cursed, after all)...this curse of his son makes since if there was something "off" about his son Canaan. The sin was Ham's but the punishment was on Canaan. This makes most since if he was a product of an incestuous union. Plus Noah's wife is never named. The wives of many patriarchs are named, but she seems to be not named intentionally, which makes since if there was a blot upon her.



Here is a link that won me over: https://www.godawa.com/chronicles_o...rgsma-Noahs_Nakedness_And_Curse_On_Canaan.pdf

And here is another link: http://judaicaukrainica.ukma.edu.ua/ckfinder/userfiles/pdf/JU_29-46.pdf

What do you think? Any flaws with these articles?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 18, 2018)

The text says:
1. "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent" (21).

So Noah really was there, and he really was naked.
2. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father" (22a).

Ham saw his father's nakedness, referring to the fact that he was "uncovered in his tent."
3. "and told his two brethren without" (22b).

Not only did Ham see his father naked--this in itself was not a sin (unless he was sneaking around trying to see him)--he went out and told his brothers about it. He was mocking his father at his father's low point. This is a HUGE 5th commandment violation.
4. "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" (23).

This is just what Ham should have done. Rather than mocking his father's sin, he should have covered it.
5. "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him."

This "younger" (or youngest) son is probably not Ham. Ham is always mentioned second: "Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (6:10, 7:13, 9:18). When the genealogies are given in Gen 10, it is in reverse order: Japheth, Ham, and Shem.
So the "younger son" must have been someone else, and it couldn't have been Japheth. There's no one left in the narrative but Canaan, who was mentioned in v18 along with Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Grandsons are often referred to as the sons of their fathers in Scripture, and that seems to be what's going on here.
So, it seems that Ham and Canaan acted together.
6. "And he said, Cursed _be_ Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" (25).

If Ham and Canaan were the perpetrators, it would be wrong for Noah to curse Ham and his posterity, because Ham's other sons had no part in the crime; rather, he curses Canaan, and Ham's punishment is the curse of his son.
Note that Shem and Japheth are described as the "brethren" of Canaan, to whom he and his posterity would be subject, even though they were his uncles. This comports with the understanding that Canaan is the one described as a "younger son" in v24.
Note also that the main use the Israelites would have had of this text in the time that it was written would have been to give an account of who the Canaanites were. That's probably why Ham falls into the background midway through the text.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jun 18, 2018)

Leviticus 18:7-8, 

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 18, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Leviticus 18:7-8,
> 
> 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.


Right. The phrase can refer to one's wife, as in verse 8, but it can also refer to one's own nakedness, as in verse 7.

Note that these verses speak of "uncovering nakedness," while Ham _saw _his father's nakedness.

Again, Noah was uncovered before Ham got there.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jun 18, 2018)

He broke the 5th commandment. It's that simple.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 19, 2018)

I didn't read the links. It sounds like vile gossip to me. I think it's wrong to assume something that is not told to us. People can come up with all sorts of imagined stories if they try hard enough. It's wrong to do so and what's the point of trying to figure out the "full" story? If God had wanted us to know more about the story, he would have told us. Why fill your brain with junk?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 19, 2018)

I guess it could be said that seeing the fathers nakedness is just not normal.

My mother is on hospice right now. She has a urostomy bag that has been giving us trouble. This past week I had to assist changing the bag twice and it caused me as a nurse to have to witness parts of my mother that I would rather have not seen. Anyone in such a situation would agree that there’s no way that that sets right in your person.

Could it be said that if Ham saw his mother’s nakedness, a thing that he should never see, that it was a level of incestuous behavior?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jun 19, 2018)

Dr. Michael Heiser would agree with this view. I know some on here believe him to be a "kook" and I certainly don't agree with him on everything but he is a well educated scholar of Semitic Languages. I personally haven't given this verse much study. It certainly has puzzled me every time I have read it. I will consult John Gill when I get home.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## SRoper (Jun 19, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> He broke the 5th commandment. It's that simple.



"...that your days may be long in the land [of Canaan]..."


----------



## bookslover (Jun 19, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Right. The phrase can refer to one's wife, as in verse 8, but it can also refer to one's own nakedness, as in verse 7.
> 
> Note that these verses speak of "uncovering nakedness," while Ham _saw _his father's nakedness.
> 
> Again, Noah was uncovered before Ham got there.



But aren't the verses in Leviticus using "uncovering nakedness" as a euphemism for sexual activity rather than just seeing someone naked?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 19, 2018)

bookslover said:


> But aren't the verses in Leviticus using "uncovering nakedness" as a euphemism for sexual activity rather than just seeing someone naked?


They can certainly be interpreted that way. That's why I pointed out that the language is different in Genesis 9. Noah was uncovered in his tent (21), and then Ham came and saw his father's nakedness (22). He did not "uncover his father's nakedness."

It's interesting that in the instance when incest is explicitly recorded in Genesis, the "uncovering nakedness" euphemism isn't used:


> *32*Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. *33*And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. *34*And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, _and_ lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. *35*And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. (Ch. 19)


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 20, 2018)

Sometimes feet only means feet.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 20, 2018)

hammondjones said:


> Sometimes feet only means feet.


I think you're getting Ruth 3 Confused with Genesis 9, brother.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 20, 2018)

Gen.9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his *younger[/est] son* had done unto him. 25 And he said, *Cursed be Canaan*;

Who is the youngest son mentioned in the text up to this point?
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*.

(If not for certain interpretations of v24, and thence to a preferential treatment of Gen.10:21, there would be little reason why we did not accept that Ham was Noah's second son. The natural read of the latter verse is that Shem is the oldest brother of Japheth, which is specified because his genealogy comes last in order on on account of the literary considerations--his is the continuing story. The pattern of handling and setting aside genealogies of lesser relevance is continued when Esau's is dealt with and still later, Ishmael.)​
Wait, that's a _grandson, _not a son!
Gen.29:5 And he said unto them, Know ye Laban *the son of Nahor*? And they said, We know _him_.
Gen.28:5 And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padan-aram unto Laban, *son of Bethuel* the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.
Gen.22:20 And it came to pass after these things, that it was told Abraham, saying, Behold, Milcah, she hath also born children unto thy brother *Nahor*; Huz his firstborn, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram, 22 and Chesed, and Hazo, and Pildash, and Jidlaph, and *Bethuel*. 23 And Bethuel begat Rebekah: these eight Milcah did bear to Nahor, Abraham’s brother.

Does this sort of thing happen very often in Scripture? How much is enough? Does context count?
Gen.14:16 And he [Abram] brought back all the goods, and also brought again his *brother* *Lot*, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
cf. 14:12 And they took *Lot*, Abram’s *brother*’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
cf. Mt.22:42 saying, What think ye of Christ? *whose* *son* *is* *he*? They say unto him, _The *Son*_ of David.

But the text doesn't say anything about what _Canaan _did, and it does say what _Ham_ did.
As I read it, the text tells me: Ham was unutterably compromised. Should he still have tried to cover his father? I don't know, but such a task worked on alone might have made a bad problem worse. It took two people to fix the problem without further compromise to them, that much we know.

Ham *was *guilty. Noah's folly implicated his son; he gave him guilty (shamed) eyes. That's true to the nature of sin, even when shame is contracted inadvertently (see the Israelite code of cleanliness, esp. Lev.5:2ff). We don't really understand "shame" culture in this country, and the trend is to understand it even less all the time, because people are *shameless*. The two brothers are commended for saving the day; because he was compromised, Ham couldn't be commended, just pardoned.​
He shouldn't have told his brothers, though...right? I don't know, but it seems to me that he told the only two who made a good effort to solve the problem.

So... why is Canaan cursed? I don't think we need to go with any of the grossly speculative and lurid proposals. Why do we know about the incident? It's in the Bible because it became public knowledge. I think it became public knowledge because Canaan mocked his [grand]father. I accept the 5th commandment violation proposal. And I think God used this whole, sad affair in order to telegraph the sort of degenerates that Canaan was to be the forefather to, anticipating the judgments to follow after many generations.

Maybe Canaan was with his father, and they stumbled upon Noah in his shameful state. All Ham could do was rush to get himself and his son out of there. Maybe Canaan overheard shamefaced Ham telling his brothers they had a crisis on their hands, "if Dad doesn't get covered up, stat!" I think Canaan went broadcasting to his brothers, sisters, and cousins (for lots of their names, see the following ch.10) things he knew first or second hand--that's my opinion, and I think it's pretty close to the text. The fix came a little too late.

People tend to read into the text facts not in evidence. Stick with what is present, and try to make the most of what is there in the most neutral manner (e.g. the "telling" of the brothers; it neither commends or condemns the act, it's just a fact, perhaps even the best choice in a situation with no good choices; cf. Gen.37:2). If Canaan is cursed, it's best to assume Canaan was at fault--no neutrality there.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 20, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I think you're getting Ruth 3 Confused with Genesis 9, brother.



Well, I just mean that sometimes a phrase may be used euphemistically, and sometimes it may not.


----------

