Biblical Logos Blog

Have you ever wondered what really happened in this set of passages?

Gen 9:20-26  And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 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. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 

Up until recently, the commentary and teaching I had heard on these passages pointed to Ham just seeing his father naked. The text describes Ham walking into his father’s tent and seeing his father drunk and naked. He then went out and told his brothers who then covered his father. The resulting curse that Ham’s son receives seems strong for that offense. Canaan gets cursed, and apparently all of his lineage because Ham saw his father naked?

I was reading Deuteronomy last night and was reminded of what I believe is a better explanation of these events. Consider these verses:

Lev_18:8  You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.

Lev_20:11  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.

Deu_22:30  “A man shall not take his father’s wife, so that he does not uncover his father’s nakedness.

Deu_27:20  “‘Cursed be anyone who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s nakedness.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

It seems clear to me that Moses writing the first five books of the Bible used the term “uncovering his father’s nakedness” as an idiom or saying. It appears to refer to incest between a son and his father’s wife. I did a little research on this view again and I have included the result below.

1. The Core Argument (The Leviticus Connection)

Your intuition about the cross-references is the primary evidence used by proponents of this view.

• The Idiom: Scholars argue that Leviticus 18:8 acts as a definition for the phrase used in Genesis 9. Since Leviticus explicitly states, “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness,” they conclude that Ham did not merely see Noah naked, but committed incest with Noah’s wife while Noah was incapacitated.
• Usurping Authority: In the Ancient Near East, sleeping with a king or patriarch’s wife was a recognized way of attempting to usurp his authority (similar to Absalom sleeping with David’s concubines in 2 Samuel 16:21-22). This would make Ham’s act a political coup attempt within the family structure.

2. It Solves the “Curse of Canaan” Problem

One of the biggest difficulties in the Genesis text is why Noah curses Canaan (Ham’s son) rather than Ham himself.

• The Incest Solution: Commentary supporting the Maternal Incest view suggests that Canaan was the product of this incestuous union between Ham and his mother.
• The Result: If this is true, Canaan is cursed because he is a “child of shame” born from the sin, which explains why the curse targets him specifically rather than Ham’s other sons (Cush, Mizraim, Phut).

3. Key Scholarly Sources

If you want to cite specific scholars who have championed this view, the most prominent modern study is:

• Bergsma & Hahn (2005): John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn published a well-known paper titled “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan” (Journal of Biblical Literature). They argue extensively that maternal incest is the only interpretation that fully explains the Hebrew idioms and the cursing of Canaan.
• F.W. Bassett (1971): An earlier scholar who proposed this in his article “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?”

4. Alternative Views (For Context)

To provide a balanced view in your writing, you might note that this is one of three major theories:

• The Literal View: Ham simply saw his father naked (voyeurism) and mocked him. (The counter-argument is that the punishment—cursing a whole lineage—seems too severe for just looking).
• The Castration View: Some Jewish Midrashic traditions suggest Ham castrated Noah to prevent him from having more heirs.
• The Maternal Incest View: The one you are exploring, grounded in the Leviticus definitions.

It was helpful for me again to see these passages in this light. Since there are multiple interpretations accepted by scholars, I cannot say with certainty the incest interpretation is right. I can however, say it is the only one for me that explains Canaan’s curse and the severity of the punishment. You might also recall what happened with Lot and his daughters. Similarly, Lot was drunk and his daughters committed incest with him. The products of that union were Ammon and Moab. Biblically, the people groups of Ammon and Moab became thorns for Israel as well. This is just like what happened with the Canaanites. The incest interpretation may also explain why Genesis 9:22 introduces Ham specifically as ‘Ham, the father of Canaan.’ Ham was the father of multiple children at this point, but why would Canaan be tied to him at the beginning of this story if it were not to point to Canaan being the result of this sinful relation?

I hope this gives you some more food for thought. Tough passages always leave you wanting more and this one for me had me wondering for years what the real story was.