Beginnings and Relationships

Answers to questions in Genesis 4 What was the sin of Ham?

"What was the "nakedness of Noah," i.e. what exactly was the sin of Ham?"

Genesis 9:20-25, " 20Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard.[a] 21He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness."

The text before us describes the fact that Noah became drunk after drinking of the wine. He was literally naked lying in his tent. There is no indication from the text that Ham took off his clothes. Dr. Matthews suggests, "It is not Noah's drunkenness and misdeed per se that are the goals of the story; it is the consequence of the infraction. Noah's curse and blessing foreshadow the relationship of the nations that the three brothers originate." 1

Dr. Matthews on the history of intreptation of these verses says, "What was Ham's sin? Why did Noah invoke curses against Canaan instead of the culrit, Ham (v.25)? Both Jewish and Christian intreptation speculated that Ham's deed was a sexual offense since the same language is found in the Pentateuch describing sexual transgressions. Further support was garnered from v.25, which refers to what Ham "had done to him." Many suppose the original story contained the sordid details but that they were excised for reasons of propriety when later placed in the Torah. Castration was thought to have been the crime by some Jewish and Christian interpreters, and others argued for a homosexual act. Jewish midrash explained that physical abuse by Ham answered why the curse was directed against Canaan; this act prevented Noah from having a fourth son, and thus Canaan as Ham's fourth son should suffer (Gen. Rab. 36.7)." 2

Dr. Henry Morris on this point elaborates, "The word "saw" in this context implies "gazed at"-evidently with satisfaction. A much more probable interpretation of Ham's actions here is that they expressed a long-hidden resentment of his father's authority and moral rectitude. There was apparently a carnal and rebellious bent to Ham's nature, thus restrained by the spiritual strength and patriarchal authority of his father. Now beholding the evidence of his father's human weakness before his very eyes, he rejoiced, no doubt feeling a sense of release from all the inhibitions which had until now suppressed his own desires and ambitions. Thinking his brothers would share his satisfaction, he hastened to find them and tell them the savory news. Literally the text says, "He told with delight." Ham's sin was not so much one of immoral lust or prurient pleasure in what he say, though there may have been an element of this present. Rather it was one of rebellion against his father's authority, plus resentment against the entire moral standard that had been taught and enforced by Noah in his family for well over a hundred years. Fundamentally, his act revealed an attitude of resentment against God Himself, a character trait which was bound to crop out explosively some day, if not in Ham, then in his children." 3

Dr. Ross suggests, "By mentioning that Ham entered and saw his father's nakedness, the text emphasizes that this seeing was the disgusting thing. Ham's errant looking, a moral flaw, represented the first step in the abandonment of a moral code. This violation of a boundary destroyed the honor of Noah. Ham desecrated a natural and sacred barrier. His going out to tell his brothers about it without covering the old man aggravated the act. Because of this breach of domestic and filial propriety, Ham could expect nothing less than the oracle against his own family's honor." 4

Essentially what we are getting at is the issue of what exactly is Ham's sin. The scholars, I have quoted above offer in my opinion the best explanation of what this text could plausibly mean. Given the text, and the background of this passage; this passage simply refers to Ham going in seeing his father Noah naked and then going out and telling his brothers. The question before us and also the text does not clearly give us an absolute answer whereby we can dogmatically say that this is without equivocation the proper intreptation. It is better in relation to the question as well as the text before us that we lean more towards what the text says and leave speculation at the door. In cases such as this one, we can gain understanding into what the text says through taking literally what the verses actually say. To look for more in the text is to violate the text and thus minimize the truth of the passage. An example of this can be seen by others who view in this passage some homosexual act, or sexual pervasion when the text simply says that Ham saw his father naked. In conclusion, we cannot answer this question authoritatively without first being there to witness the event. Furthermore to suggest otherwise would be to violate the text and impose a meaning upon a passage that does not offer a conclusive explanation.

1 Kenneth A. Matthews, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: Genesis 1:11:26, (Broadman and Holman, USA, 1996), 417.
2 Kenneth A. Matthews, The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture: Genesis 1:11:26, (Broadman and Holman, USA, 1996), 418.
3 Henry Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, (Baker Books, USA, 1976), 235.
4. Allen P Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Baker Books, USA 2002), 145.
4. Allen P Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Baker Books, USA 2002), 215.