Reader's Question: Why Did Noah Curse His Son?

Reader's Question: Why did Noah curse his son for uncovering his nakedness? Was it such a sin to see your father naked or did he look just a little too long?

This is the part of Noah’s tale that Veggie Tales skipped and we don’t often include in the flannel graph presentations at Vacation Bible School. If you are unfamiliar with the tale, you can find it in Genesis 9:18-28, but it basically goes like this.

Noah and his family had survived the flood and were beginning to put their lives back together. For Noah, one of the first priorities was to plant a vineyard, and it wasn’t because he liked grapes and raisins all that much. No, Noah had a hankering for some wine which he promptly made and then proceeded to get smashed. (That’s drunk for all of you good Southern Baptists.) And he didn’t get just a little tipsy or buzzed. No, he was black out drunk.

While he incapacitated, his youngest son Ham decided to take advantage of the situation and this is where the story gets a little murky. The Bible plainly says that Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness, but we don’t know precisely what that means. We do know that whatever went down was bad enough for Noah to curse, not his son, but his grandson. That’s right. Noah curses Ham’s son Canaan.
I, for one and along with many other Biblical scholars, highly doubt that this was a simple case of seeing his father naked. Remember the time frame we are dealing with, there are few houses and no indoor plumbing. And the houses that might have existed would have been small one room dwellings that have a way of creating a level of family togetherness that we just don’t experience all that often today. So if it as more than looking what, was it?

There are actually three options:

The first is that Ham sexually assaulted his father. That’s right, we are talking about homosexual, incestuous rape committed against his drunken father. (You can see why reenacting this with Bob and Larry might pose some difficulties.)  Typically when the Bible uses the phrase “uncover the nakedness of…” it is referring to a sexual act, check out Leviticus 18 to see this in action. However, this explanation does not explain why Noah would curse Ham’s son. I mean, sure maybe he was the one drinking with Noah, egging him on to the next glass, but the timing is all wrong. I just don’t see Noah whose first significant act upon leaving the ark is to plant a vineyard taking the time to age wine for well over a decade before sampling it.

Which brings us to the second option, supported by the following two verses:

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. Leviticus 18:7

If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:11

The nakedness of the father is the nakedness of the father’s wife. In other words, Ham may have had sex with his mother while his father was to inebriated to defend her. Why Ham would do such a thing is a matter of debate. Was it lust? Who knows? It could have been that simple, but it also could have been part of a larger statement. In Biblical times having sex with another man’s wife or concubine was political move. We see this in 2 Samuel 16:22 when Absalom has sex with David’s concubines. In essence, Absalom was saying if, “I can take his place between these women’s legs, I can take his place as king.” This was also why Absalom did so publicly or, as the Bible says, “in the sight of all Israel.” He wanted everyone to know what he did, and he wanted everyone to see how powerless his father was to stop it.
Ham may have been doing the same thing. Notice verse 22:

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

There was no cover up or attempt to hide what he did. He did not even bother to cover his “father’s nakedness”, which in this theory was his mother, but instead left the scene for his brothers to witness. He told them what they were going to find and where to find her. Which causes me to ask, why would he do that unless he was trying to make a statement? I think he was trying to claim his position of dominance. He wanted them to know that he was going to rule in this rebirth civilization. He was not going to be subservient or even respectful to his own parents or his older siblings. He wanted power and he was going to take it.

If this is correct, then it also answers why Noah would curse his own grandson and not the father responsible this act. For it is entirely possible that the Ham’s son was born to his mother, the product of incest and defiance. This may be why the author felt the need to identify Ham as Canaan’s father, not once but twice. It is possible he wanted there to be no doubt that the Canaan while born to Noah’s wife was not Noah’s son. Bloodlines are highly important within Jewish culture, to confirm this just wade through all the “begats” in Numbers, and the writer seems to be intent on making sure there was no mistakes or confusion about Canaan’s parentage.

The third option is equally disturbing as the other two. Midrash claims that Ham castrated his father to prevent Noah from having any more sons. This would have somehow made Ham greater than his father by him having four sons instead of three as Noah did. So Noah curses Ham’s fourth son. I think this is less likely, but I wanted throw it out there since it has been proposed.

I think which every option you find most convincing, it all comes down to one thing – this was far more than simply seeing is father naked. Ham took advantage of his father’s drunkenness to inflict damage upon Noah. The precise nature of that damage may always be in question, but the severity of Noah’s curse reveals that Ham’s actions were to have lingering consequences throughout time.