Noah & the Curse of Ham

I recently heard a message on this after the Flood, God promises blessing to Noah's children.
& what does Noah do next? He curses his children!

It also discussed the sin of children broadcasting Noah's shame. But it didn't make the exact connection that that's what kids do today, pointing out the sins of their fathers. That's a good connection!

The message didn't go into Noah's drunkenness being sin, only his nakedness shame being broadcast & his ungodly response. I thought that was glossing over drunkenness being a cause of sin

This gives insight to what happened in that chapter and clues of why the curse happened. Noah, Ham, and the Cursing of Canaan—Part Two

When the person writing that blog points out to Deuteronomy and Leviticus, it makes sense to me.

BrokenContriteHeart said:

Hey all,

I had a question about how we should interpret these verses in Genesis 9:



There has been and probably will be a lot of discussion on what exactly happened, but my interpretation of it is as follows:
1. The lack of detail itself should tell us something
2. Being drunk and naked are both not proscribed activities
3. The sin here could well be that of a child who not only does not cover their parents' folly or shameful things, but furthermore broadcasts it.
4. The application for us should be that whenever possible, children should not belittle, make fun of, point fingers at or broadcast our parents' folly -- even if the shame is true.

An example might be if a parent has a debt, alcoholism or anger problem, the child should not amplify it, for example on social media (anonymously seeking advice is probably permissible).

What if the parent's conduct crosses into criminality, such as if the child knows their parents are cheating people, wife beating or worse? Probably then they should take action (pushing for things to be made right quietly or internally) and at a last resort, to take things to the authorities. Because the Bible also tells us to be blind and without favor while executing justice.

Click to expand...

This is a garden scenario, where (through the process of time) the name of the land (Israel/God's firstborn) finds its first name in relationship to the son we are. As a side note the two seeds are brought together again in Noah (a son of a 1/3rd son which retalte to a great many things in scripture), above all its a picture of the process of reasoning.

Imagine coming off of a boat/ark with NO life around besides the lives which are on the boat/ark. Would you be able to keep your composure when the entire land, in every direction, is barren with life?

So Noah, who was already probably a drinker of 'wine' before beginning to build the boat/ark with specific dimensions to be followed, builds the boat/ark in order to avoid being in the middle of the 'war' that he was warned, by God, of and The LORD God begins to bring in the animals into the boat/ark. It wasn't Noa(c)h who gathered the living creatures into the boat/ark but it was The LORD God Who was leading the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, etc..... into the boat/ark that was being built to 'save' those which The LORD God wanted to be saved.....

And when the flood dissipated enough for life to get back onto muddy but solid enough ground, those that which were in the boat/ark began to leave the boat/ark onto the muddy but dry enough land. And looking around, what 'life' would they have saw? Even the trees would have been under water for over 40 plus days....

So completely in some form of 'shock', per se, Noa(c)h and the 'sons' and the 'wives', were the ONLY human life(s) which they had for any 'socializing'. They didn't even have any enemies because there were NO other human life(s).. So Noa(c)h in his already matured life is in some sort of dizziness, bewilderment, shock, breathless... new social life.... new daily life... new planting and eating life.... new building life... etc.....
For him, the old was passed and he had to deal with the new.... he didn't drink because he was a drunkard, per se... He drank because he NEEDED to keep his nerves from having him tear his beard out....

What his grandson, Canaan, received was for the wrong his son, 'Ham' did. Canaan received the so called 'curse'. Ham saw the nakedness of his father's body and didn't find it shameful enough but rather something to be laughed and jeered about.... maybe even out of the same dizziness, bewilderment, shock, breathless... new social life.... new daily life... new planting and eating life.... new building life... etc..... that even he himself, Ham, had to go through in his 'new' life... his old having 'passed'.... So Ham was already probably a sort of prankster before his 'new' life... and maybe to keep himself from losing his own 'mind', he did what he might have done before the flood to keep himself from thinking he had become a total 'stranger' to himself.... there was NO other human around....


Now about the 'sin' part.
Of course 'sin' is the transgression of the Law... but 'sin', or even The Law, was not yet handed/given to Moses. So what Ham did could not be seen as a 'transgression' of The Law which was received by Moses.....

So bad manners...

And.... ?

Well, Noah does not curse Ham who did the thing. But Noah curses "Canaan" who was a son of Ham. Plus, Ham had other sons who are not recorded as being cursed.

So, all the ones who come from Ham are not necessarily cursed. Plus, all in sin are cursed.

But God did bless them all, after the flood. So, I can see His blessing could have overruled Noah's cursing, to some extent.

Plus, Jesus on the cross put an end to any curses we have had in sin. We have gotten a new beginning with Jesus. So, even if someone were cursed by Noah, that is ended by trusting Jesus on the cross.

So, what did Ham do? May be, since its effects are canceled by those who join with Jesus at Calvary . . . it is a past thing, and our attention belongs now with Jesus . . . answering to Him, not trying to get Him to answer to us.

com7fy8 said:

Well, Noah does not curse Ham who did the thing. But Noah curses "Canaan" who was a son of Ham. Plus, Ham had other sons who are not recorded as being cursed.

So, all the ones who come from Ham are not necessarily cursed. Plus, all in sin are cursed.

But God did bless them all, after the flood. So, I can see His blessing could have overruled Noah's cursing, to some extent.

Plus, Jesus on the cross put an end to any curses we have had in sin. We have gotten a new beginning with Jesus. So, even if someone were cursed by Noah, that is ended by trusting Jesus on the cross.

So, what did Ham do? May be, since its effects are canceled by those who join with Jesus at Calvary . . . it is a past thing, and our attention belongs now with Jesus . . . answering to Him, not trying to get Him to answer to us.

Click to expand...

I think the big question is why Noah would curse Ham's (4th) son, and what connection does this have to the purpose God purposed in himself, now being revealed in us ...

One theory is that Ham seeing his father in his nakedness is an idiom for Ham committed incest with Noah's wife, Ham's mother, which resulted in the birth of Canaan.

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