Why did Noah curse canaan?
Genesis 9- 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
When it comes to this subject there are actually 2 separate questions that need to be addressed.
- Why did Noah curse Canaan instead of Ham
- What was Ham’s sin that warranted the punishment of Canaan.
This is a passage of the Bible that has brought about much postulation and debate throughout both ancient and modern times. The text categorically specify what Hams crime was. Neither is it specific as to why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham. We have to do some detective work in order to best answer these questions.
The passage in question is found in Genesis chapter 9.
Genesis 9- 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 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. 23And 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.
Before we go any further there are 2 very very very wrong interpretations that have been used by some people to teach that a certain race of people have been cursed by God. These false teachers say that the offspring of Ham have been cursed by God.
1) It was CANAAN that was cursed NOT Ham as verse 25 very clearly states.
Genesis 9- 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
2) it was NOT God that cursed Canaan it was NOAH who cursed Canaan as verses 24 and 25 clearly state
Genesis 9- 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.
ANYONE that teaches that God has cursed a race of people (whichever race that may be) and uses this passage as evidence for such a claim is a false teacher and has, for their own means and benefit manipulated the scriptures and proclaim a false testament. It is that simple.
Anyway back to the passage and what it actually says.
Firstly although I have my own personal opinion of what the passage is in reference to, I am in no way dogmatic as to the correct answer and neither do I think anyone actually can be or indeed should be.
There are 4 main theories that have been put forth regarding what Ham did that warranted the curse of Canaan. We shall look at all 4. Plus one extra possibility.
1) Ham simply saw his father naked (voyeurism). He then told his brothers who promptly covered their father without looking upon him.
2) That Ham castrated Noah
3) Ham had sexual relations with his father (paternal incest)
4) Ham had sexual relations with Noah’s wife, the mother of Ham (maternal incest)
5) Japheth was promoted
Let’s start with number 1) Voyeurism
This is the most basic, simplest and literal reading of the text.
After Noah got drunk Ham saw his father naked and told his brothers
Genesis 9- 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Shem and Japheth went backwards into Noah’s tent as to not see his literal nakedness and used a garment to cover him.
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.
However there are some problems with this interpretation.
There is no biblical restriction about seeing a parent literally naked.
It could be that Ham mocked Noah and told his brothers and it is the disrespect of his father that was his sin.
Exodus 20-12 may possibly be called upon as support.
Exodus 20-12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
There is no mention of any mocking by Ham only that he told his brothers.
We are told that Noah knew what had been done to him when he awoke. If the crime of Ham was simply voyeurism then this does not explain how Noah “knew” what had been done.
This interpretation however in no way answers the question as to why it was Canaan and not Ham who was cursed at all, neither does it answer as to why Canaan would be cursed with such a strong curse by Noah.
The voyeurism of Ham therefore leaves the curse of Canaan unanswered.
Although one answer to this that I can see is it could be that Noah was unable to curse Ham seeing that God had already blessed him so turned to Ham’s son instead.
Genesis 9- 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
This might answer why Ham was not cursed but still does not answer why Canaan in particular was cursed and not all the sons of Ham seeing that Ham had 4 sons.
This does not in of itself make this interpretation incorrect but it leaves questions unanswered and so is not in fact an explanation that fully explains the passage.
2) Castration.
Although this interpretation was favoured by many Rabbis, probably as it is an answer to the severity of the sin of Ham and the curse of Canaan, this I feel is the weakest of all the explanations.
It most certainly would answer the question how did Noah know what had been done to him after he woke? Castration is something that isn’t going to go unnoticed.
Castration is one theory as an answer to the rather obvious understanding that the passage rather hints at something a little more than the simple voyeurism of Ham.
However there really is nothing in the text to indicate such an action. The text states that Ham saw the nakedness of his father and that his brothers covered that nakedness. To understand this as castration is reading into the text an interpretation that has no scriptural support either in the passage itself or elsewhere in the Bible.
It must also pointed out the fact the scripture also states that Shem and Japheth covered the nakedness of Noah. Which then leaves us with the question how could Shem and Japheth cover Noah if he had indeed just been castrated? We must not ignore parts of a passage in order to keep an interpretation. ALL the scripture must be harmonized.
Many who believe that castration is the answer claim that Noah had 3 sons and Ham castrated Noah to stop him from having anymore sons and thus also usurping his authority over Noah.
The argument for castration by a son of his father for this purpose can be supported by ANE mythology but not by the Bible itself as we never see this carried out by any person in the biblical texts.
Some postulate as Ham had made it impossible for Noah to have a fourth child that Canaan was cursed by Noah being the fourth son of Ham.
The understanding that Canaan was the fourth son of Ham comes from the next chapter of Genesis where the sons of Ham are listed.
Genesis 10- 6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
As we can see Canaan is listed fourth.
However. When we go back to the passage in question we see that ONLY Canaan is mentioned. Ham is stated as being the father of Canaan 2 times in this short passage.
Genesis 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. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
Genesis 9- 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
So it has to at least be acknowledged that ONLY Canaan is mentioned, no other sons from any of the sons of Noah are mentioned at all here.
This is after Noah and his sons has disembarked from the ark and had been told by God to replenish the earth.
Genesis 9-1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Genesis 9- 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
Canaan was mentioned in a passage that was only dealing with the sons of Noah.
It could be, and this is only a possibility based on interpreting the scriptures, that Canaan was in fact the first son of Ham, in fact the first born of ALL of the grandchildren of Noah and the only one having yet been born at this time. After the sin of Ham (whatever that may in fact have been) Canaan, being the only grandchild of Noah at the time, was cursed and therefore “relegated” to last once other grandsons were born by Ham.
This however is only a possible theory that I can logically work out based on the very limited available information in the scriptures.
3) Paternal incest
This is probably the most favoured understanding of the text.
Ham performed some kind of homosexual incestual act with his father. Ham then told his brothers who went and covered their father.
This understanding is based mainly on the severity of the curse of Canaan. That the sin of Ham must have been something worse than simply “seeing” his father naked. It again would also explain how Noah would have known what was done to “him”.
Those that claim that this has to be a literal seeing the nakedness of Noah by Ham have to ignore the simple fact that idiomatic terminology is used in the Bible.
Lets just take the term “to know”. This is a Biblical idiom for sexual intercourse.
I’m sure that there won’t be many who interpret Joseph not knowing Mary until after she brought forth Jesus as literally meaning Joseph did not yet know who Mary was.
Matthew 1-25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
To know someone meaning sexual intercourse is evident throughout scripture. It is first introduced when Cain was conceived by Adam and Eve.
Genesis 4-1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
The terminology “ to uncover the nakedness” of someone is a Biblical idiom for sex. Forbidden, illicit sex.
It is used many times throughout scripture as such.
It is used in the “law” to forbid sexual relations between a son and his father or mother. The nakedness of the father being specified as being the uncovering of the fathers wife.
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.8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
It is used to forbid sexual relations between a man and his fathers wife (step-mother)
Leviticus 20-11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall beupon them.
Deuteronomy 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.
It is also used in a whole list of forbidden sexual which includes, sisters, daughters, daughter in laws, sister in laws, aunties and granddaughters.
Leviticus 18- 10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 11The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. 18Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
To ignore this very clear fact of idiomatic language is disingenuous at best and deceitful at worst.
Furthermore we must hold in remembrance that both the laws of leviticus AND the passage in Genesis were both written by Moses. Therefore the use of language in one should be seen as support for the other.
We see that in Leviticus 20-7
Leviticus 20-7 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
see in this verse is the Hebrew תִרְאֶ֤ה ṯir-’eh from רָאָה raah.
This is the same root word in Genesis 9-22.
It is also the root of the verse in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 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.
Nakedness in both verses is עֶרְוָה ervah.
This nakedness is not the same as to be naked as Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden
Genesis 2-25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
The Hebrew for naked in this verse is עָרוֹם arom
The laws in Leviticus prohibiting incestual sex are grammatically similar to the passage in Genesis.
To uncover the nakedness means an illicit sexual act.
It therefore would seem biblical to assert that when Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father this was in fact a biblical idiom for Ham performed an illicit sexual act with his father.
It would answer the severity of the curse and how Noah knew what was done to him.
However it does not answer the question why was Canaan and not Ham cursed. This could be answered by referring back to my previous possible explanations such as Ham had already been blessed by God and or Canaan was in fact the first son of Ham.
However what must be highlighted at this point is that in EVERY instance of the usage of this term it is ALWAYS in relation to a heterosexual illicit act and NOT a homosexual act.
As leviticus 18-8 states to uncover the nakedness of your fathers wife is to uncover your 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.8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
This is contrary to the condemnation of homosexuality where NO term to uncover the nakedness is used.
Leviticus 18-22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
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.
This then leads us into possibility number 4) That Ham had sex with Noah’s wife, the mother of Ham. The sin that Ham therefore performed was maternal incest.
Ham uncovered his father’s nakedness by uncovering the nakedness of his mother, which is the nakedness of his father.
After Ham told his brothers of what he had done they went backwards into Noah’s tent where there mother was and covered her, not seeing her naked and therefore not uncovering their fathers nakedness.
Out of the 4 interpretations of this passage that are most commonly postulated, I personally think that this one has the strongest biblical support.
This interpretation again also explains the severity of the curse of Canaan and COULD offer a logical and biblical reason WHY Canaan was cursed by Noah. Canaan was the result of the act of Ham with his mother. Whether this act was rape or consensual really is speculation as there simply is nothing that can be used to support either view. Canaan was the offspring of Ham and Ham’s mother, the wife of Noah. This may further explain why Canaan is mentioned along with the 3 sons of Noah.
Genesis 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. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
Canaan being the son of Ham but also shown to be a (half) brother to Shem and Japheth through their mother but Ham is specifically stated as being the father of Canaan twice so that Canaan would not be confused as being a full brother or that Noah was the father.
There is ALWAYS a reason why the scriptures state what they state in the way that they state it.
A son that sleeps with his fathers wife, be it his mother or step mother would commit an act of rebellion against his father seeing a man’s wife is his “possession”.
As it would still be possible that Noah could not curse Ham as he had been blessed by God. Canaan the illicit offspring of this union was therefore cursed by Noah.
It can be pointed out that Noah cursed Canaan immediately and so if Canaan was the offspring of Ham and his mother this would not be possible seeing it would be 9 months before Canaan would be born.
However what is very clear from the text is that the story is very condensed.
The text states that Noah planted a vineyard in one verse and got drunk of the wine in the very next.
Genesis 9- 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
It surely isn’t going to be argued that the vineyard was planted in the morning and in the evening Noah got drunk of the wine.
Clearly there was a period of time between Noah planting the vineyard and his getting drunk of the wine. Although the time is not stated it must be understood that an unspecified period of time had indeed passed. It therefore could be argued, on the same basis that a period of 9 months had passed between the event and Noah’s curse of Canaan. It could even be argued that Noah cursed the unborn baby. Either interpretation would suffice here.
The story of Ham has parallels with the story of Lot and his daughters in Genesis 19.
Lot is made drunk from wine and then his eldest daughter lies with him (has sex with)
Genesis 19- 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.
BOTH the firstborn and younger daughter conceived children of their father through illicit incestual sex.
There does however remain 1 extra possible explanation that I like, although ultimately I am unsure as to its viability.
This simply being that Canaan’s curse by Noah was simply a declaration of authority.
This is based primarily on the verse that says that Noah knew what his younger son had done.
According to the Bible Japheth was the youngest son, not Ham. Whenever the sons are mentioned they are always stated in the same order. Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 5-32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 6-10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 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;
Genesis 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
Genesis 10-1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
1 Chronicles 1-4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Noah having seen what his younger son, Japheth had done, Japheth having covered Noah unlike his elder brother Ham who had seen Noah naked and came and told his brothers, “promoted” Japheth above Ham in order of authority. As we see Noah stated that God shall enlarge Japheth who would dwell in the tents of Shem.
Genesis 9- 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Inheritance and who would obtain it was of a much higher importance during Biblical times.
Shem being the firstborn had ultimate authority. Ham was second and Japheth was last. However after this incident Noah gave Japheth the authority of the 2nd born who was Ham and Ham’s son was demoted. Canaan was to be the servant of Japheth.
Why did Noah curse Canaan and not Ham. Again we can use the earlier explanations. Ham had already been blessed by God and Canaan was originally the firstborn of Ham but relegated after Japheth had been “promoted”.
So rather than this being about what Ham did wrong it is more about what Japheth did right and performed his duty as a son.
As stated in the opening to this writing I am not sure we can ever know 100% as to the meaning although as I also stated I do think the scriptural evidence more suits the maternal incest theory although I rather hope its the promotion of Japheth.
0 Comments