What Were the Sins of Noah and Ham?

In Genesis 9:20-27 is found an account that records a sin on the part of Noah’s son Ham. The passage has sparked no small debate among commentators and lay people. The relevant questions are, Was Noah sinning when he became drunk? What does it mean to see the nakedness of ones’ father? And, why was Canaan cursed when Ham committed the sin? Several theories and proposals have been offered. A brief survey of the major ideas will be offered, as well as an explanation of which is most likely to be correct.

The first idea is that the text means just what it says. According to this hypothesis, Noah became drunk (either purposefully, or unwittingly) and unclothed himself. Ham saw his father in this undignified way, and took pleasure in it. When Noah regained his wits, He cursed Canaan for the sin.

The strength of this view is that it does not require one to go beyond the text. However, the primary weakness is that it fails to explain why Canaan was judged. Also, the offense was relatively minor, so why such a severe retribution? It also doesn’t explain verse 24. The verse says when Noah awoke he knew what his son “had done unto him.” That would be a very odd way to describe simply viewing his father’s nudity. This verse suggests that more than that happened.

The second view has been largely abandoned today, but it was believed by some ancient rabbis. According to this view, Noah became drunk and while he was unconscious Ham and Canaan came and castrated Noah. When the influence of the alcohol left Noah, he knew what they did to him and pronounced judgement accordingly.

The arguments in support of this belief are that is a very ancient belief, and hence closer to the event itself. It explains quite well what “done unto him” means. It accounts for why Canaan was cursed. The word translated nakedness is erwa which means “his genitals.” Additionally Noah is never recorded as having had any other children despite living for another three hundred and fifty years. However, this view has been rejected because Shem and Japheth solved the problem by covering Noah’s nakedness, not giving him first aid. This theory also brings castration into the question which goes far beyond anything the text says. The term erwa may suggest there was some sexual sin, but castration is just too far-fetched to be believable.

A third, and very interesting, view is that after Noah became drunk, Ham went in unto Noah’s wife and had sexual relations with her. The child Canaan was the result of this ungodly relationship, and this is why the curse was placed on him.

This theory actually accounts for most of the evidence fairly well. In support of this view it deserves to be noted that the term “saw the nakedness” of someone is a biblical euphemism for sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:11, the Bible says if a man lays with his mother then he has uncovered his father’s nakedness. This view also accounts for the curse being placed on Canaan. The most serious argument against this view is verse 23. This verse says Shem and Japheth covered Noah with a blanket. This renders it improbable that the term “saw his father’s nakedness” has anything to do with Noah’s wife. Verse 23 makes it plain that Noah was actually naked. Furthermore, verse 21 plainly says Noah was uncovered prior to Ham’s sin, and the verse implies that his nakedness is due to the wine he had drunk.

Another view widely held among scholars today is that the story is entirely fictional. That is to say it was a useful tool to justify the Hebrew conquest of Palestine as recorded in the book of Joshua. While this perspective is interesting, it seems to lack justification. Why, after all, should this one story be tossed out as being historical? There does not appear to be any break in the text that would allow such an interpretation. Therefore this view seems unacceptable to the Bible believer.

The final major view, which most commentators hold, is that Ham engaged in homosexual relations with Noah. This view maintains that the term “saw his father’s nakedness” is a euphemism for an immoral sexual practice. But, it refers to Noah himself rather than Noah’s wife. The strengths of this argument are manifold. It does not go outside of the text itself. It accounts well for verse 24 saying Noah knew what his son had done unto him. It accounts for the severity of the punishment especially well. The Bible contains numerous, severe condemnations of homosexual activity. The Old Testament law explicitly forbids it in Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed for engaging in this sin in Genesis 19. Even the New Testament condemns it strongly as seen in Romans 1:26-28, and Jude 1:5-8. The Bible strongly opposes homosexual actions throughout. The only objection to this view would be that it does not account for the curse being placed on Canaan. Some have proposed that the curse was placed on Canaan because he was Ham’s favorite son. Thus, it would be a judgment on Ham. This does not seem likely since the sins of the father cannot be applied to sons as seen in Ezekiel 18:20. Others have suggested that the curse was only a prophecy of what would happen in Ham’s line. The sins of Ham would be reflected in his family. While not without problems, this view seems to explain all of the data better than the other competing explanations.

Perhaps exactly what happened between Noah and Ham will never be known. However, the essential meaning of the passage is clear. One can be sure that Ham sinned against his father, and that trouble was upon his lineage thereafter. Unfortunately, because the specific details are shrouded in mystery, the exact chain of event is lost to history.