In regard to Noah cursing Canaan, rather than Ham: I believe it may have been because no one can curse what God has blessed & no one can bless what God has cursed (see the story of Balaam in Numbers 24.) God had already blessed Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham & Japeth (in Genesis 9:1-2) so perhaps thats why the curse that Noah wouldve spoken over Ham, he instead spoke over Ham's son Canaan, in his stead.
I agree with this explanation. Noah was simply announcing in advance what direction Ham's desendents would take based on the condition of Ham's heart felt disrepect toward his Father. If Ham would have just turned away, and grabbed a robe and walked backwards to cover his Father, it might have turned out different.
I disagree because of Proverbs 26:2 which states: Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest. And why would Noah suddenly curse his grandson. I think therefore, that it must remain a mystery.
I always thought that they took nakedness more seriously than we do. Adam and Eve knew they were naked after they sinned and were ashamed. I think we don't understand the connection of knowing we are naked with sin. Ham disrespected his father because Noah was naked due to his sin of getting drunk. Ham saw that and then told his brothers.
I love this & completely agree ❤ Nakedness seems to represent sin. Adam & Eve tried (inadequately) to cover their own sin (they felt guilt & wanted to fix it, like we all tend to do when we sin) but God, after cursing the serpent & disciplining Adam & Eve for their sin, made the first sacrifice (which can be looked at as Christ's sacrifice) and HE covered their nakedness (aka sin).. the only adequate covering is the one He made for us. The sacrifice is there, from the very first. The plan, the redemption, all began unfolding from the very beginning. Everything in the old scripture points to Jesus.
@@barefootthruthemtns you know that the Bible is clear on mocking and gossip… that these are sin… and it is incredibly harsh of gossip and mocking. These are no small thing. And this was the first sin after the flood so there are serious consequences for that. 29 Penalties are prepared for mockers,and beatings for the backs of fools. Proverbs 19:29 | NIV 20 The ruthless will vanish,the mockers will disappear,and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down- Isaiah 29:20 | NIV 9 The schemes of folly are sin,and people detest a mocker. Proverbs 24:9 | NIV And then see how gossip is equated with evil here- 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Romans 1:29-31 | NIV So the nakedness can easily be taken literally if we understand how God feels about the actions (gossip bordering on mocking) that is clearly evident here
Good morning Chad and all who read this. In My Opinion Noah was speaking prophetically. I also think (1) if Noah had cursed Ham the curse would have been passed to all of Ham's children. (2) He cursed Canaan's line to prepare the territory for the return of the Hebrews to the promised land after the slavery in which they had endured in Egypt.. My opinion thanks for reading. Thank you Chad for your willingness to speak to the hard to understand passages. P.S. I thoroughly enjoy your through the bible series.
Good point about the immediate context. However, in the slightly broader context of the entire book of Genesis, there is a repeating pattern of sexual union, usually inappropriate, involving some level of duplicity which leads to a curse or exile of some sort, often including the production of offspring which become a thorn in the side of the God's people. The Sons of God and the daughters of men, Lot and his daughters, Abraham and Hagar, The people of Sodom, Sarah and Abimelech (almost), Sarah and Pharaoh (almost), Jacob and Leah, Hamor and Dinah, Judah and Tamar. It makes me think that very well may have been the case with Canaan who became the father of the Canaanites. it could have been both literal and euphemistic language in this context.
Cain was the offspring of Satan. Able was Adam’s. That’s what Cain is not mentioned in the Adam’s lineage. It starts with Seth. Satan beguiled / wholly seduced eve.. and then eve also had sex with Adam. Two children with two different fathers. Cain is of his father the devil. Who was a murder from the beginning
Deuteronomy 22:30 ¶ A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt. And 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.
I appreciate sharing your thoughts on this. No dogmatism here because there are problems in any explanation. Great observation about this being the only recorded words of Noah. In my opinion, the problem with the “straightforward reading” explanation is the curse on the grandson. Why would Noah curse someone who had nothing to do with the situation? That would be a clear injustice. As you stated, some try to fix this explanation by assuming that the grandson was involved (which the text does not state). The text in Lev 18 which includes the “euphemisms” and the story in Gen 9 were written by the same author (Moses). Just as the 7 days of creation in Gen 1 are "imported" to explain the "keep the Sabbath day" commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, so Lev 18 is “imported” to Gen 9 in order to understand the actions of Ham. Notice Lev 18 starts with “nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you.” In other words, the descendants are acting in keeping with great-great-great… grandfather Ham. Noah's prophetic curse was fully warranted. To me, Ham “seeing his father’s nakedness” indicates taking opportunity of a situation, not just visual observation. He did so incestuously (his father's nakedness), and then told his brothers what he did. The results of Ham's action were the birth of Canaan (maybe). In contrast, the 2 other brothers “covered the nakedness of their father” - i.e. covered mom. Who is to say there is no euphemism here as well? Otherwise, are we to take from the story that if a child accidentally saw his mom or dad naked, and then told his siblings, that somehow the grandchildren would warrant a curse? Seems a little extreme. Anyway thanks for your thought provoking videos. Someday we may know the answer (if we even care about such things then).
Our Sunday school group has been tackling this verse on and off for a couple months. I tend to side with the maternal incest interpretation, in light of the language of Leviticus18, taking into account that Moses more than likely wrote both passages. Canaan probably was the product of that incestuous relationship, which is why Noah pronounced a curse on his descendants, the Cannanites.
I had always wondered about that passage too, but like you, I took it as a literal retelling of events as they happened though I did wonder at times if there was more to it. Isn't it funny though how we can know something to be true but not know it till someone else says it? Noahs only recorded spoken words!
I’m sure he knew what his youngest son had done when he woke up because he said/ who covered me with this huge blanket or fur ? It’s not mine from my tent. Who saw my nakedness. And the older two brothers told him - father we covered you when our youngest brother told us of your nakedness. So then he knew.
I addressed that argument in the video. Nowhere in Genesis 9 does it say anything about “uncovering.“ In fact, the only one who is said to be unclothed in this narrative is Noah.
@@chadbird1517 I'm not convinced that there was not more going on here. First, Leviticus 18 let's us know that to uncover one's father's wife is to uncover the father, and secondly, in Levitcus 20 the phrase to "see nakedness" is used synonymously in the same verse as to "take" and "to uncover" Lev 18:7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. Lev 20:17 “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.
Thank You Chad. The question/issue I have with this... prophetic speaking or inference doesn't negate the fact that the event truly occurred. And with the benefit of hindsight, we could label Noah's curse as prophetic but I doubt that Noah thought he was speaking prophetically. To explain prophetically is awesome but I don't think it answers the fact that it truly happened. From the standpoint of a real event, then we must decipher what Noah was saying in the the narrative and not just preempt he saw the "disrespect of his son" and decided to prophetically curse his grandson.
There is no word in Hebrew for grandson, so it was likely that Canaan performed an illicit act on Noah. When Noah sobered up he saw what his grandson had done and he therefore cursed him. The curse is rightfully placed on the sinner.
You are ignoring the rest of the incest explanation: after this event Noah found his wife to be pregnant with Canaan and as a result cursed the fruit of Ham's act. We are not given the times of these events, how far apart they were. Noah would have found out later his wife was pregnant from Ham and cursed Caanan then, not right away.
Genesis 9:24, “When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan...” We are given the time of these events. When he awoke, he cursed.
Well, I respect you for even trying to explain the meaning of all this, Chad! Obviously, there were "not recorded" unspoken meanings to all this that we only have puzzle pieces to. I read this so many times and always ended up staring at a "wall" of wondering/questioning. I finally gave up! And decided there are missing pieces to the meaning of this. I came to peace with that. There is no way I can know absolutely everything about GOD too, so I can easily just come to rest on this issue. Thank GOD there is so much we CAN understand!!!! But what I can't understand just shows me I can't know it all..... and that's ok with me. HE will fill in all the blanks HE wants to. Thank you, Chad for your input on this. Interesting!
So many different imaginative renditions of this story have risen. So many questions are engendered irrespective of which sequence of events one accepts. I think yours is correct with one POSSIBLE difference. The two boys may have covered their naked mother and thus covered their father's nakedness. Maybe. If not, then it becomes difficult when Christians ask about whether or not a boy could ever see his father naked. Many fathers teach their sons hygene and toilet routines by demonstration. If a boy seeing his father naked then brought such a devastating curse then why would it not now do so? And why is the child, who had nothing to do with offense, the object of the curse? This was long before the Law and so would be a universally applied dictum. I too, as a 21st century man, do not understand the severity of the punishment. Recall though, that a stubborn and rebellious son during the time of the Mosaic law brought a death sentence by stoning. The regency of fatherhood in the early years of humanity seems to me to be of Divine origin and very seriously enforced. I think that there is insufficient information in this text to state very much with absolute certainty. Trying to interpret something in the mindset of Noah that long ago with a 21st century cosmology is perhaps impossible unless there is some other source of information. Perhaps a non-biblical historic document that clarifies the thinking of people in general back then. But it still begs the question, why is it not still the same today?
Why can’t the euphemism apply also to Shem and Japheth? Also Noah said Canaan would be a servant to his brothers, and then proclaims him to be a servant to Shem and Japheth. Seems like the text is making a point to say that while Shem and Japheth are Canaan’s brothers, Ham is his father. The “mocking” view is not a straightforward reading. It makes a euphemism out of the phrase “told his brothers outside” to really mean “disrespectfully mocked his father.” But that euphemism has no exegetical basis. Interesting topic though.
@@chadbird1517but you already pointed out from Lev 18 that uncovering nakedness of your father is sexual relations with his wife. So why do you explain that then turn around and say "nah, that's not what that was." There are so many later laws in the Torah that are hyperlinks/call backs to things that happened in the narratives of Genesis. It totally makes sense that it was an incestuous relationship of some kind.
@jcarrigan42 listen carefully to the video again. Chad Bird says there's a difference between "seeing" the nakedness and "uncovering" the nakedness. Hence it can be taken literally.
So interesting that Yeshua In Matthew 25 says when I was naked You clothed me when you did this to the least of these my brothers The others ask when did we see you naked and not clothe you, Yeshua answers when you did not do it for the least of these my brethren
And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. First child conceived + 9 months Japheth (Gen 10:21 Shem, the brother of Japheth the elder = 500 yrs old Noah (Gen 5:32) + 18 months Ham + 18 months Shem ________________ 503 Noah's age last son born ______________________ 600 Noah@ flood +14 months ____________________ 601 yrs & 2months flood ended (Gen 8:13) + 2 yrs after Shem 100 yrs old (Gen 11:10) _______________________________ 603 yrs & 2months Noahs age Arphaxad was born Shem seems to have been born when Noah was about 503 yrs old.
Another theory that you did not mention is that Noah had the speacial garment that was originally given to Adam and Eve by God and made of animal skin. That garment was somehow passed down the generations especially from Adam to Enoch and to Methuselah and subequently to Noah and beleived to have some mystical power. Taking advantage of Noah's drunkenness, Ham took away that garment leaving his father naked, and gave it to his eledest son Canaan with the hope that Canaan should be the leader of the family and dominate all the others by the mystical power from the garment. Which is why Shem and Japheth had to carry a new garment to cover Noah's nakedness and which is why Canaan is cursed. Read this from a copy of the Book of Jasher circulating on Internet. The Bible mentions about the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10:13 and 2 samuel 1:18.
The explanation is certainly creative, but the Book of Jasher exists under multiple forms, the very earliest of which dates to the middle ages. So however, creative the explanations may be, they have no true relevance to the biblical text.
Completely agree. I think our flesh likes to fill in the blanks. I wonder if we also get caught up with the curses and blessings, making them bigger deals or a kind of sorcery.
There is no other reason to curse a child, Unless the product is a pollution and a stolen birthright. What would place birthright on Canaan? There is only contempt and misplaced judgment from God in any other interpretation
I don't agree, it's still a mystery. but my question is ... If Noah was asleep how did he know Ham did anything especially if Ham just 'looked' and didn't touch or interact? How is it he woke up and thought, "Ham!" I kinda lean towards the sex with mother then she having a son by Ham idea.
We are not told that Noah awoke and *immediately* knew what had happened. Genesis 9:24 could also be translated that Noah found out, discovered, or learned what Ham had done to him. He could easily have learned this from his two other sons. He probably also wondered what he was doing covered up when he woke up and inquired. It doesn’t necessarily imply that as soon as his eyesopened, he knew what had happened.
Except the older Dead Sea based scroll interpretations, esv, kjv, do say he woke and knew. Only the newer nlt , niv etc. add that he "learned, found out."
Hi Chad, could Ham been looking at his father's nakedness because he was sexually attracted to Noah and had twisted evil thoughts in his mind? Sorta like same sex attraction?
The standard “drunk naked Noah” explanation is weak for several reasons: First, two observations-Genesis is written down by Moses in the wilderness after God revealed the Ceremonial Law and thus we should have that law open and in front of us when we read Genesis to fill in the gaps such as how Noah knew what animals were clean (Moses’ audience didn’t need to be told); Noah’s drunkenness recapitulations the fall. A coupe of comments: 1.) Whatever Ham did, he broke the 5th commandment about honoring his father and mother. 2.) From the Levitical standpoint, it would be a logical conclusion that Noah’s nakedness being uncovered would be sex with his wife. 3.) Noah's nakedness, whatever it was, was worse than Adam and Eve's. They couldn't cover it themselves, so another had to. save for Noah. 4.) Individual private dwellings with clearly defined spaces seem unlikely. conclusion: i agree with your conclusion that it was drunk naked Noah that Shem and Japheth cover with a cloak, but I also believe it is a strong possibility that Ham is making a power-play for patriarch a la Reuben and Bilhah
But the part that still nags at me, Noah had awoken and knew what his son had done. He did something. He was in a drunken sleep, if Ham walked in and just looked at him, he wouldn't be aware of it.
@@MeganBowlin-y9q Maybe, but what is the harm in walking in on Noah who was drunk and noticing he was uncovered? Something was done, there was an offense committed. Perhaps it's as simple as not covering his father, but that seems too trivial to be part of the story. At least in my modern view point. Idk.
It seems biblically, and especially on Genesis, offspring often are the recipients of cursing or judgment based on the conduct of the parent. Under the maternal incest view, the Canaan would have been cursed more just as a description of his being the result of an incestuous union.
@lolasimmons9152 I didn't say he wasn't drunk... He became drunk, and he uncovered himself in her tent. My point is nothing said He was asleep the whole time or passed out in her tent. It just says when he wike up he knew what Ham had done to him.
For me this episode's big question isnt what did Ham do to Noah, but the severity of Noah's reaction. If this was Ham seeing and some ugly talking about Noah- does the punishment match the crime? That wasnt some reducing of heritage or alike, but CURSE! Curse upon many generations- thats huge!! You dont utter anything like that for an act of disrespect.
Certain acts of dishonoring one's parents, later in Israel, were worthy of the death penalty. Now WE today might think that a bit much, as if the punishment does not fit the crime, but it did in Israel. I am certainly open to the possibility that this brief text leaves out some important details (as do a number of texts from Genesis 1-11). My concern is how we treat the details that ARE recorded. And the main detail, Ham seeing Noah naked, must not be misinterpreted sexually since there are no textual grounds for doing so. In short, we must not let our curious questions (What else happened??) allow us to read too much into what is recorded.
I think that you have a error in your Bible, because in the NKJV, Genesis 9:21 says, Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
Disagree with your exegesis. You are taking Shem and Japheth's actions literally, and then importing that to the previous verse. But if it's being used euphemisticially, then they well could've taken the garment and walked backward into the house/room and covered their mother and not looked upon his nakedness, that is their mother.
I really don't understand what you're disagreeing with here. He stated it clearly that both Ham's action and that of his brothers were literal in every sense of it, but that Noah's curse was prophetic knowing that Ham had laid a generational trait down for his descendants. This eventually played out with the Canaanites in the biblical days of the Israelites. A similar scenario was when Jacob cursed his twelve sons; a curse that would eventually affect their descendants. I guess you should listen again and more attentively.
It's certainly a possibility and I think it would be wrong to come to too harsh of a conclusion either way. There's good evidence for all of these views and since this passage is so sparse and cryptic, it's hard to know. It appears that the Jewish Rabbis also have been unclear exactly the meaning of this passage.
Go see Lev. 20:11 Deut. 27:20 to see the real meaning of seeing nakedness. It's not literally just seeing someone naked, if you want to understand it fully you need to check the original language used.
I disagree with your exegesis. You’re making too many unnecessary assumptions. We have a hard time understanding this because we don’t live in a honor - shame culture. It’s best to take texts literally unless you’re forced to take them figuratively.
This would make sense... if I ignore the rest of the Masoretic text, in which every other useage in the Tanakh of "uncover the nakedness" refers to sexual activity. It would be nice and convenient to dismiss the prurient exegesis, but it's vastly overstating the case to say that this is all just Jewish tradition or commentary. Linguistics 101: How is this phrase used and understood by these authors and this audience? Answer: sorry, but sexual immorality.
Where in Genesis 9 does the phrase "uncover the nakedness" appear? Answer: nowhere. So we cannot use that phrase to interpret what happened in Genesis 9. Indeed, the ONLY person who is described as naked in Genesis 9 is Noah, who lay uncovered in his tent.
@@chadbird1517 That is entirely consistent with nakeness as the direct object of transitive verbs both in Genesis 9 and, for example, Leviticus 18:7, where the first phrase is how one ought not deal with the nakedness of father and mother. It seems that to ignore Mosaic formulation is to undermine the concept of Moses as author/compilor of the Pentateuch וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל in Genesis 9 (hitpael) is similar in function to the (pi'el) תְגַלֵּ֑ה forbidden in Leviticus 18:7a, particularly when the reflexive-intensive verb is linked to the doer of the deed in simple qal in the very next verse. I have to smile at the notion that it's just Jewish interpretation when my very first read through Genesis in the Jewish Study Bible had the footnote saying roughly, "Even though every other use of this terminology in the Old Testament refers to sexual activity, here it doesn''t." without justfication or reference, the exact opposite tone that you ascribed to Jewish interpretation. (Admittedly, the Jewish Study Bible is a Reformed source.) It seems far more likely that in a Mosaic text, the vocab and grammar obey the same meanings as the rest of the Mosaic text. If we start taking Genesis alone, or subdivisions of Genesis (using the 'eleh toledoth' divisions for pre-existent texts, we're dealing with context too restricted for a 'where else is it used like this' argument. And if we're dealing with just the Pentateuch, then the common useage argues for an interpretation of sexual immorality.
I too acknowledge Mosaic authorship of the Torah. In fact, that strengthens my position. IF Moses had wanted us to link Genesis 9 with the Leviticus idiom of "uncovering the nakedness," then he would have used the idiom. He would have written something like, "And Ham, the father of Canaan, UNCOVERED THE NAKEDNESS OF HIS FATHER and told his two brothers outside." But Moses did not write that. He wrote that Ham SAW the nakedness of his father. Again, I repeat, who is the only one who is explicitly said to be naked in Genesis 9? Noah. No one else.
Absolutly! Shem snd Jephath dud indeed cover up their naked mother and their father as well probably. You don't make woopy without getting naked! Thats why "nakedness" is ysed.
Your view raises as many problems as the castration view. Besides, the narrative surely has a lot of sexual undertones! vineyard, wine, drunk, see nakedness, and text says ham was the father of Canaan twice. The Noah prophetic stuff doesn’t account for complexities in the narrative imo. Not an appeal to authority, OT scholars like John Walton, Gary Schnittjer concede there is a sexual element in the narrative, whether paternal or maternal incest.
I agree, moreover the idiom used to describe the actions Shem and Japheth take - to cover the nakedness of their father - makes direct reference to the language of Leviticus. This can hardly be accidental or simply coincidence. In addition, this scene draws on the images presented in Genesis 2-3 that describes the covering of Adam and Eve
This is the best explanation I've come across, and I agree. Thank you. It makes total sense.
In regard to Noah cursing Canaan, rather than Ham: I believe it may have been because no one can curse what God has blessed & no one can bless what God has cursed (see the story of Balaam in Numbers 24.) God had already blessed Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham & Japeth (in Genesis 9:1-2) so perhaps thats why the curse that Noah wouldve spoken over Ham, he instead spoke over Ham's son Canaan, in his stead.
Wonderful explanation! Thanks for all you do!
Interesting insights! I've always wondered exactly what was going on there and what you said makes sense.
Best explanation ever and I heard all of those narratives thanks
I agree with this explanation. Noah was simply announcing in advance what direction Ham's desendents would take based on the condition of Ham's heart felt disrepect toward his Father. If Ham would have just turned away, and grabbed a robe and walked backwards to cover his Father, it might have turned out different.
I love how I can disagree with you and still love your content. Very well explained, friend.
I disagree because of Proverbs 26:2 which states: Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow, an undeserved curse does not come to rest. And why would Noah suddenly curse his grandson. I think therefore, that it must remain a mystery.
Thank you, interesting and helpful!
I always thought that they took nakedness more seriously than we do. Adam and Eve knew they were naked after they sinned and were ashamed. I think we don't understand the connection of knowing we are naked with sin. Ham disrespected his father because Noah was naked due to his sin of getting drunk. Ham saw that and then told his brothers.
I love this & completely agree ❤ Nakedness seems to represent sin. Adam & Eve tried (inadequately) to cover their own sin (they felt guilt & wanted to fix it, like we all tend to do when we sin) but God, after cursing the serpent & disciplining Adam & Eve for their sin, made the first sacrifice (which can be looked at as Christ's sacrifice) and HE covered their nakedness (aka sin).. the only adequate covering is the one He made for us. The sacrifice is there, from the very first. The plan, the redemption, all began unfolding from the very beginning. Everything in the old scripture points to Jesus.
@@barefootthruthemtns excellent points!
@@barefootthruthemtns you know that the Bible is clear on mocking and gossip… that these are sin… and it is incredibly harsh of gossip and mocking. These are no small thing.
And this was the first sin after the flood so there are serious consequences for that.
29 Penalties are prepared for mockers,and beatings for the backs of fools.
Proverbs 19:29 | NIV
20 The ruthless will vanish,the mockers will disappear,and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down-
Isaiah 29:20 | NIV
9 The schemes of folly are sin,and people detest a mocker.
Proverbs 24:9 | NIV
And then see how gossip is equated with evil here-
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Romans 1:29-31 | NIV
So the nakedness can easily be taken literally if we understand how God feels about the actions (gossip bordering on mocking) that is clearly evident here
Thank you for your detailed thoughts.
Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful.
Agreed! Thank you and God bless.
Good job! This makes sense.
I was just looking for this videos thank you 🙏🏿
Thanks for your teaching and sharing!
Thank you for this teaching!
Great video Chad, this makes sense in a honor and shame culture. I believe your interpretation is spot on. Thanks!
Great explanation.
Thanks for your post. You explanation is consistent with the return of the Israelites to Israel after the Exodus.
Good morning Chad and all who read this. In My Opinion Noah was speaking prophetically. I also think (1) if Noah had cursed Ham the curse would have been passed to all of Ham's children. (2) He cursed Canaan's line to prepare the territory for the return of the Hebrews to the promised land after the slavery in which they had endured in Egypt.. My opinion thanks for reading. Thank you Chad for your willingness to speak to the hard to understand passages. P.S. I thoroughly enjoy your through the bible series.
Good morning Chad, love your teaching and I trust your insight but I don't understand. Very interesting, l need more teaching.
Good point about the immediate context. However, in the slightly broader context of the entire book of Genesis, there is a repeating pattern of sexual union, usually inappropriate, involving some level of duplicity which leads to a curse or exile of some sort, often including the production of offspring which become a thorn in the side of the God's people.
The Sons of God and the daughters of men, Lot and his daughters, Abraham and Hagar, The people of Sodom, Sarah and Abimelech (almost), Sarah and Pharaoh (almost), Jacob and Leah, Hamor and Dinah, Judah and Tamar.
It makes me think that very well may have been the case with Canaan who became the father of the Canaanites. it could have been both literal and euphemistic language in this context.
Cain was the offspring of Satan. Able was Adam’s. That’s what Cain is not mentioned in the Adam’s lineage. It starts with Seth. Satan beguiled / wholly seduced eve.. and then eve also had sex with Adam. Two children with two different fathers. Cain is of his father the devil. Who was a murder from the beginning
Deuteronomy 22:30 ¶ A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt. And 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.
I appreciate sharing your thoughts on this. No dogmatism here because there are problems in any explanation. Great observation about this being the only recorded words of Noah.
In my opinion, the problem with the “straightforward reading” explanation is the curse on the grandson. Why would Noah curse someone who had nothing to do with the situation? That would be a clear injustice. As you stated, some try to fix this explanation by assuming that the grandson was involved (which the text does not state).
The text in Lev 18 which includes the “euphemisms” and the story in Gen 9 were written by the same author (Moses). Just as the 7 days of creation in Gen 1 are "imported" to explain the "keep the Sabbath day" commandment in Exodus 20:8-11, so Lev 18 is “imported” to Gen 9 in order to understand the actions of Ham. Notice Lev 18 starts with “nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you.” In other words, the descendants are acting in keeping with great-great-great… grandfather Ham. Noah's prophetic curse was fully warranted.
To me, Ham “seeing his father’s nakedness” indicates taking opportunity of a situation, not just visual observation. He did so incestuously (his father's nakedness), and then told his brothers what he did. The results of Ham's action were the birth of Canaan (maybe). In contrast, the 2 other brothers “covered the nakedness of their father” - i.e. covered mom. Who is to say there is no euphemism here as well? Otherwise, are we to take from the story that if a child accidentally saw his mom or dad naked, and then told his siblings, that somehow the grandchildren would warrant a curse? Seems a little extreme. Anyway thanks for your thought provoking videos. Someday we may know the answer (if we even care about such things then).
Excellent understanding 👏
Our Sunday school group has been tackling this verse on and off for a couple months.
I tend to side with the maternal incest interpretation, in light of the language of Leviticus18, taking into account that Moses more than likely wrote both passages. Canaan probably was the product of that incestuous relationship, which is why Noah pronounced a curse on his descendants, the Cannanites.
I had always wondered about that passage too, but like you, I took it as a literal retelling of events as they happened though I did wonder at times if there was more to it. Isn't it funny though how we can know something to be true but not know it till someone else says it? Noahs only recorded spoken words!
Biblically answered questions - thank you
I’m sure he knew what his youngest son had done when he woke up because he said/ who covered me with this huge blanket or fur ? It’s not mine from my tent. Who saw my nakedness. And the older two brothers told him - father we covered you when our youngest brother told us of your nakedness. So then he knew.
Leviticus 18:8
The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
I addressed that argument in the video. Nowhere in Genesis 9 does it say anything about “uncovering.“ In fact, the only one who is said to be unclothed in this narrative is Noah.
@@chadbird1517 I'm not convinced that there was not more going on here. First, Leviticus 18 let's us know that to uncover one's father's wife is to uncover the father, and secondly, in Levitcus 20 the phrase to "see nakedness" is used synonymously in the same verse as to "take" and "to uncover" Lev 18:7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. Lev 20:17 “If a man takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. He has uncovered his sister's nakedness, and he shall bear his iniquity.
I agree. This is pretty obvious when reading the scripture (ie. historical account).
Thank You Chad.
The question/issue I have with this... prophetic speaking or inference doesn't negate the fact that the event truly occurred. And with the benefit of hindsight, we could label Noah's curse as prophetic but I doubt that Noah thought he was speaking prophetically.
To explain prophetically is awesome but I don't think it answers the fact that it truly happened. From the standpoint of a real event, then we must decipher what Noah was saying in the the narrative and not just preempt he saw the "disrespect of his son" and decided to prophetically curse his grandson.
There is no word in Hebrew for grandson, so it was likely that Canaan performed an illicit act on Noah. When Noah sobered up he saw what his grandson had done and he therefore cursed him. The curse is rightfully placed on the sinner.
I agree 👏
You are ignoring the rest of the incest explanation: after this event Noah found his wife to be pregnant with Canaan and as a result cursed the fruit of Ham's act. We are not given the times of these events, how far apart they were. Noah would have found out later his wife was pregnant from Ham and cursed Caanan then, not right away.
Care to share a verse?
Genesis 9:24, “When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan...” We are given the time of these events. When he awoke, he cursed.
Yes, please elaborate give verses I'm interested
I agree completely.
Well, I respect you for even trying to explain the meaning of all this, Chad! Obviously, there were "not recorded" unspoken meanings to all this that we only have puzzle pieces to. I read this so many times and always ended up staring at a "wall" of wondering/questioning. I finally gave up! And decided there are missing pieces to the meaning of this. I came to peace with that. There is no way I can know absolutely everything about GOD too, so I can easily just come to rest on this issue. Thank GOD there is so much we CAN understand!!!! But what I can't understand just shows me I can't know it all..... and that's ok with me. HE will fill in all the blanks HE wants to. Thank you, Chad for your input on this. Interesting!
Why does it say ham is the father of canaan? And ham was the land of Egypt.
So many different imaginative renditions of this story have risen. So many questions are engendered irrespective of which sequence of events one accepts.
I think yours is correct with one POSSIBLE difference. The two boys may have covered their naked mother and thus covered their father's nakedness. Maybe.
If not, then it becomes difficult when Christians ask about whether or not a boy could ever see his father naked. Many fathers teach their sons hygene and toilet routines by demonstration. If a boy seeing his father naked then brought such a devastating curse then why would it not now do so? And why is the child, who had nothing to do with offense, the object of the curse? This was long before the Law and so would be a universally applied dictum.
I too, as a 21st century man, do not understand the severity of the punishment. Recall though, that a stubborn and rebellious son during the time of the Mosaic law brought a death sentence by stoning. The regency of fatherhood in the early years of humanity seems to me to be of Divine origin and very seriously enforced.
I think that there is insufficient information in this text to state very much with absolute certainty. Trying to interpret something in the mindset of Noah that long ago with a 21st century cosmology is perhaps impossible unless there is some other source of information. Perhaps a non-biblical historic document that clarifies the thinking of people in general back then.
But it still begs the question, why is it not still the same today?
❤❤
Could you please share the translation from which you read the text?
Like father, like son, Noah revealed to Ham that his lineage will be as he is and the nature of his seed will result in being cursed.
1. Luv the beard
2. If this is merely a glimpse of Noah’s nakedness then how did he recall it and why was the curse so heavy?
Why can’t the euphemism apply also to Shem and Japheth? Also Noah said Canaan would be a servant to his brothers, and then proclaims him to be a servant to Shem and Japheth. Seems like the text is making a point to say that while Shem and Japheth are Canaan’s brothers, Ham is his father. The “mocking” view is not a straightforward reading. It makes a euphemism out of the phrase “told his brothers outside” to really mean “disrespectfully mocked his father.” But that euphemism has no exegetical basis. Interesting topic though.
I have heard that Ham went and preached it to his brothers, not just talk about it
Could Shem and Japherh actually been covering their mother?
Some argue that. For it to be true, however, one would first have to prove that the text is about sex.
@@chadbird1517but you already pointed out from Lev 18 that uncovering nakedness of your father is sexual relations with his wife. So why do you explain that then turn around and say "nah, that's not what that was."
There are so many later laws in the Torah that are hyperlinks/call backs to things that happened in the narratives of Genesis. It totally makes sense that it was an incestuous relationship of some kind.
@jcarrigan42 listen carefully to the video again. Chad Bird says there's a difference between "seeing" the nakedness and "uncovering" the nakedness. Hence it can be taken literally.
❤❤❤
So interesting that Yeshua In Matthew 25 says when I was naked You clothed me when you did this to the least of these my brothers
The others ask when did we see you naked and not clothe you, Yeshua answers when you did not do it for the least of these my brethren
And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
Gen 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
First child conceived
+ 9 months Japheth (Gen 10:21 Shem, the brother of Japheth the elder
= 500 yrs old Noah (Gen 5:32)
+ 18 months Ham
+ 18 months Shem
________________
503 Noah's age last son born
______________________
600 Noah@ flood
+14 months
____________________
601 yrs & 2months flood ended (Gen 8:13)
+ 2 yrs after Shem 100 yrs old (Gen 11:10)
_______________________________
603 yrs & 2months Noahs age Arphaxad was born
Shem seems to have been born when Noah was about 503 yrs old.
For comparison: Naked Bible Podcast Episode 159 👍
Another theory that you did not mention is that Noah had the speacial garment that was originally given to Adam and Eve by God and made of animal skin. That garment was somehow passed down the generations especially from Adam to Enoch and to Methuselah and subequently to Noah and beleived to have some mystical power. Taking advantage of Noah's drunkenness, Ham took away that garment leaving his father naked, and gave it to his eledest son Canaan with the hope that Canaan should be the leader of the family and dominate all the others by the mystical power from the garment. Which is why Shem and Japheth had to carry a new garment to cover Noah's nakedness and which is why Canaan is cursed. Read this from a copy of the Book of Jasher circulating on Internet. The Bible mentions about the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10:13 and 2 samuel 1:18.
The explanation is certainly creative, but the Book of Jasher exists under multiple forms, the very earliest of which dates to the middle ages. So however, creative the explanations may be, they have no true relevance to the biblical text.
Agree to disagree.
Completely agree. I think our flesh likes to fill in the blanks. I wonder if we also get caught up with the curses and blessings, making them bigger deals or a kind of sorcery.
There is no other reason to curse a child,
Unless the product is a pollution and a stolen birthright.
What would place birthright on Canaan?
There is only contempt and misplaced judgment from God in any other interpretation
Many times throughout Isaiah and Jeramiah. Sexual relations is indicated as "seeing".
I don't agree, it's still a mystery.
but my question is ...
If Noah was asleep how did he know Ham did anything especially if Ham just 'looked' and didn't touch or interact?
How is it he woke up and thought, "Ham!"
I kinda lean towards the sex with mother then she having a son by Ham idea.
We are not told that Noah awoke and *immediately* knew what had happened. Genesis 9:24 could also be translated that Noah found out, discovered, or learned what Ham had done to him. He could easily have learned this from his two other sons. He probably also wondered what he was doing covered up when he woke up and inquired. It doesn’t necessarily imply that as soon as his eyesopened, he knew what had happened.
Except the older Dead Sea based scroll interpretations, esv, kjv, do say he woke and knew. Only the newer nlt , niv etc. add that he "learned, found out."
Hi Chad, could Ham been looking at his father's nakedness because he was sexually attracted to Noah and had twisted evil thoughts in his mind? Sorta like same sex attraction?
The standard “drunk naked Noah” explanation is weak for several reasons:
First, two observations-Genesis is written down by Moses in the wilderness after God revealed the Ceremonial Law and thus we should have that law open and in front of us when we read Genesis to fill in the gaps such as how Noah knew what animals were clean (Moses’ audience didn’t need to be told); Noah’s drunkenness recapitulations the fall.
A coupe of comments:
1.) Whatever Ham did, he broke the 5th commandment about honoring his father and mother.
2.) From the Levitical standpoint, it would be a logical conclusion that Noah’s nakedness being uncovered would be sex with his wife.
3.) Noah's nakedness, whatever it was, was worse than Adam and Eve's. They couldn't cover it themselves, so another had to. save for Noah.
4.) Individual private dwellings with clearly defined spaces seem unlikely.
conclusion: i agree with your conclusion that it was drunk naked Noah that Shem and Japheth cover with a cloak, but I also believe it is a strong possibility that Ham is making a power-play for patriarch a la Reuben and Bilhah
But the part that still nags at me, Noah had awoken and knew what his son had done. He did something. He was in a drunken sleep, if Ham walked in and just looked at him, he wouldn't be aware of it.
I’m sure the older brothers said father we covered you because our other youngest brother told us you were naked. And then he knew.
@@MeganBowlin-y9q Maybe, but what is the harm in walking in on Noah who was drunk and noticing he was uncovered? Something was done, there was an offense committed. Perhaps it's as simple as not covering his father, but that seems too trivial to be part of the story. At least in my modern view point. Idk.
Why not curse Ham? Why his son and descendants? Ham saw and laughed at his father’s nakedness…
It seems biblically, and especially on Genesis, offspring often are the recipients of cursing or judgment based on the conduct of the parent.
Under the maternal incest view, the Canaan would have been cursed more just as a description of his being the result of an incestuous union.
No "importe" of the meaning needed, IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE DAME AUTHOR!".
Actually nothing in the text indicates Noah was "passed out drunk".
“He drank of the wine and became drunk” Gen 9:21
In Genesis 9:21 says, Then he drank of the wine and was Drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
@lolasimmons9152 I didn't say he wasn't drunk... He became drunk, and he uncovered himself in her tent. My point is nothing said He was asleep the whole time or passed out in her tent. It just says when he wike up he knew what Ham had done to him.
For me this episode's big question isnt what did Ham do to Noah, but the severity of Noah's reaction. If this was Ham seeing and some ugly talking about Noah- does the punishment match the crime? That wasnt some reducing of heritage or alike, but CURSE! Curse upon many generations- thats huge!! You dont utter anything like that for an act of disrespect.
Certain acts of dishonoring one's parents, later in Israel, were worthy of the death penalty. Now WE today might think that a bit much, as if the punishment does not fit the crime, but it did in Israel. I am certainly open to the possibility that this brief text leaves out some important details (as do a number of texts from Genesis 1-11). My concern is how we treat the details that ARE recorded. And the main detail, Ham seeing Noah naked, must not be misinterpreted sexually since there are no textual grounds for doing so. In short, we must not let our curious questions (What else happened??) allow us to read too much into what is recorded.
@@chadbird1517 Agreed!
P.S.What do we do with those curious questions? I doubt suppressing / forbidding etc will help.
God bless your ministry, Chad!
i think the story is a way to mock the Canaanites because they dont get along with the isrealites
And Noah became drunk and uncovered himsef in her tent!
I think that you have a error in your Bible, because in the NKJV, Genesis 9:21 says, Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.
Disagree with your exegesis. You are taking Shem and Japheth's actions literally, and then importing that to the previous verse. But if it's being used euphemisticially, then they well could've taken the garment and walked backward into the house/room and covered their mother and not looked upon his nakedness, that is their mother.
I really don't understand what you're disagreeing with here. He stated it clearly that both Ham's action and that of his brothers were literal in every sense of it, but that Noah's curse was prophetic knowing that Ham had laid a generational trait down for his descendants. This eventually played out with the Canaanites in the biblical days of the Israelites.
A similar scenario was when Jacob cursed his twelve sons; a curse that would eventually affect their descendants. I guess you should listen again and more attentively.
It's certainly a possibility and I think it would be wrong to come to too harsh of a conclusion either way. There's good evidence for all of these views and since this passage is so sparse and cryptic, it's hard to know. It appears that the Jewish Rabbis also have been unclear exactly the meaning of this passage.
Go see Lev. 20:11 Deut. 27:20 to see the real meaning of seeing nakedness.
It's not literally just seeing someone naked, if you want to understand it fully you need to check the original language used.
Canaan was born out of an incestious relationship of Ham and Noah's Wife.
I disagree with your exegesis. You’re making too many unnecessary assumptions. We have a hard time understanding this because we don’t live in a honor - shame culture. It’s best to take texts literally unless you’re forced to take them figuratively.
This would make sense... if I ignore the rest of the Masoretic text, in which every other useage in the Tanakh of "uncover the nakedness" refers to sexual activity.
It would be nice and convenient to dismiss the prurient exegesis, but it's vastly overstating the case to say that this is all just Jewish tradition or commentary.
Linguistics 101: How is this phrase used and understood by these authors and this audience?
Answer: sorry, but sexual immorality.
Where in Genesis 9 does the phrase "uncover the nakedness" appear? Answer: nowhere. So we cannot use that phrase to interpret what happened in Genesis 9. Indeed, the ONLY person who is described as naked in Genesis 9 is Noah, who lay uncovered in his tent.
@@chadbird1517
Why are we excluding the entirety of the Torah when considering Mosaic useage of "uncover the nakedness of"?
@@chadbird1517
That is entirely consistent with nakeness as the direct object of transitive verbs both in Genesis 9 and, for example, Leviticus 18:7, where the first phrase is how one ought not deal with the nakedness of father and mother.
It seems that to ignore Mosaic formulation is to undermine the concept of Moses as author/compilor of the Pentateuch
וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל in Genesis 9 (hitpael) is similar in function to the (pi'el) תְגַלֵּ֑ה forbidden in Leviticus 18:7a, particularly when the reflexive-intensive verb is linked to the doer of the deed in simple qal in the very next verse.
I have to smile at the notion that it's just Jewish interpretation when my very first read through Genesis in the Jewish Study Bible had the footnote saying roughly, "Even though every other use of this terminology in the Old Testament refers to sexual activity, here it doesn''t." without justfication or reference, the exact opposite tone that you ascribed to Jewish interpretation. (Admittedly, the Jewish Study Bible is a Reformed source.)
It seems far more likely that in a Mosaic text, the vocab and grammar obey the same meanings as the rest of the Mosaic text. If we start taking Genesis alone, or subdivisions of Genesis (using the 'eleh toledoth' divisions for pre-existent texts, we're dealing with context too restricted for a 'where else is it used like this' argument. And if we're dealing with just the Pentateuch, then the common useage argues for an interpretation of sexual immorality.
I too acknowledge Mosaic authorship of the Torah. In fact, that strengthens my position. IF Moses had wanted us to link Genesis 9 with the Leviticus idiom of "uncovering the nakedness," then he would have used the idiom. He would have written something like, "And Ham, the father of Canaan, UNCOVERED THE NAKEDNESS OF HIS FATHER and told his two brothers outside." But Moses did not write that. He wrote that Ham SAW the nakedness of his father. Again, I repeat, who is the only one who is explicitly said to be naked in Genesis 9? Noah. No one else.
Absolutly! Shem snd Jephath dud indeed cover up their naked mother and their father as well probably. You don't make woopy without getting naked! Thats why "nakedness" is ysed.
Your view raises as many problems as the castration view. Besides, the narrative surely has a lot of sexual undertones! vineyard, wine, drunk, see nakedness, and text says ham was the father of Canaan twice. The Noah prophetic stuff doesn’t account for complexities in the narrative imo. Not an appeal to authority, OT scholars like John Walton, Gary Schnittjer concede there is a sexual element in the narrative, whether paternal or maternal incest.
I agree, moreover the idiom used to describe the actions Shem and Japheth take - to cover the nakedness of their father - makes direct reference to the language of Leviticus. This can hardly be accidental or simply coincidence. In addition, this scene draws on the images presented in Genesis 2-3 that describes the covering of Adam and Eve
Could you please share the translation from which you read the text?
ESV
@@chadbird1517 Thank you
💖