Bible Study Noah's Nakedness

[stovebolts]

I've always thought that Noah was pretty harsh on his son Canaan for joking at his father being drunk and passed out naked in his tent. But I recently read something different on this matter and wanted to share it with you all to get your take on it.

Genesis 9:22-25 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 youngest son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

I believe that Moses recorded Genesis, and when he did so, he used the language of Exodus. Or maybe a better way to say it, he used the lingo common to the people of that era. I want to look at Noah's nakedness through the words of Moses as we find in Leviticus 18:7.

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

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

18:8 is clear that if one uncovers the fathers wifes nakedness, one has uncovered the father's nakedness.

With this understanding, can we go back to "Noah's nakedness" and view it as his wife's nakedness? After all, Leviticus 18:8 states that if one uncovers the fathers wife nakedness, they have uncovered their "fathers nakedness". This is the same language used in Genesis 9:22 in regard to Noah.

I think it could go either way, and found this very interesting. But it still always kind of bothered me that Canaan would be treated so harsh for making fun of his Father, and even perhaps his own Mother for getting drunk and passing out naked in their tent. But is that what really happened? I understand the culture, and I've even taught that the priests were to use stairs to go up the altar because God didn't want their nakedness exposed (Exodus 20:26) But "their" nakedness is not the same language used in Genesis 9:22 or Leviticus 18:7-8.

What I find very interesting about Leviticus 18:7-8 is this though. The Jews understood these verses regarding "uncovering" the Fathers Nakedness carried a sexual overtone. In other words, it wasn't just seeing your mother or father naked, it was engaging in sexual activity with them.

With this type of an interpretation, it makes more sense to me now why Canaan was cursed so harshly.

The question remains though, did Canaan have sexual favors with Noah, or with his own Mother? I don't have any idea but lean more toward Noah.

Something to think about anyway. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

 

[reba]

These verses always implied to me that Canaan was joking about more then a " oops sorry dad".... if it was an oops he would not have been so punished. Catching ones parents would be a yuck to most of us.... As Vinnie Barbarino said " My mother is a saint she wouldn't do THAT.
He may have hung around watching his parents...

 

[stovebolts]

Well, that very well could have been the case Reba...

Genesis 9:21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.

Ok, so this is a guy thing... don't read any more if your not a guy.

Guys (preferably the older ones, they'll know why lol), hows your sex life when your drunk?... yeah.. that's what I thought ;)

Maybe that's why Canaan was laughing so hard! :toofunny

Only part I don't get then is this...

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.

This implies to me that good ole Dad (or Mom) was passed out.

 

[jasoncran]

in modern law that would be called rape as the victim didnt consent as being in drunken state or sleep. so in a sense he raped his mother!

 

[DPMartin]

I've always thought that Noah was pretty harsh on his son Canaan for joking at his father being drunk and passed out naked in his tent. But I recently read something different on this matter and wanted to share it with you all to get your take on it.

Genesis 9:22-25 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 youngest son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

I believe that Moses recorded Genesis, and when he did so, he used the language of Exodus. Or maybe a better way to say it, he used the lingo common to the people of that era. I want to look at Noah's nakedness through the words of Moses as we find in Leviticus 18:7.

Leviticus 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, even the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

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

18:8 is clear that if one uncovers the fathers wifes nakedness, one has uncovered the father's nakedness.

With this understanding, can we go back to "Noah's nakedness" and view it as his wife's nakedness? After all, Leviticus 18:8 states that if one uncovers the fathers wife nakedness, they have uncovered their "fathers nakedness". This is the same language used in Genesis 9:22 in regard to Noah.

I think it could go either way, and found this very interesting. But it still always kind of bothered me that Canaan would be treated so harsh for making fun of his Father, and even perhaps his own Mother for getting drunk and passing out naked in their tent. But is that what really happened? I understand the culture, and I've even taught that the priests were to use stairs to go up the altar because God didn't want their nakedness exposed (Exodus 20:26) But "their" nakedness is not the same language used in Genesis 9:22 or Leviticus 18:7-8.

What I find very interesting about Leviticus 18:7-8 is this though. The Jews understood these verses regarding "uncovering" the Fathers Nakedness carried a sexual overtone. In other words, it wasn't just seeing your mother or father naked, it was engaging in sexual activity with them.

With this type of an interpretation, it makes more sense to me now why Canaan was cursed so harshly.

The question remains though, did Canaan have sexual favors with Noah, or with his own Mother? I don't have any idea but lean more toward Noah.

Something to think about anyway. I'd appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

StoveBolts

I really don’t think or see that the language in Exodus has anything to do with why Noah was so harsh. Its not that Noah was harsh it is that the Lord saw to it that the cure would be so. That’s what Ham didn’t respect.

You must live in America like I do, Americans are notorious for lack of respect and honor, for others. And it is possible why we don’t see the significance or importance of the disrespect Ham had for his father, and did to his father. On top of that Ham is alive, and not washed away with the others in the flood because his father found Grace in the Lord God’s site. With that kind of disrespect, and the act thereof in the presence of the rest of the world. (Noah and his three sons and their wives constituted the whole world.) What did you expect from Noah, thank you? And coming from Noah God made it stick for ever. If we curse some one, that and a dollar fifty will get you a coffee. Offend disgrace, disrespect some one like Noah. Ham was fortunate he was still alive. That’s who Noah is.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi DPMartin,

By "Exodus" language, I am talking about culture as a whole, and not simply referencing the book. Let me see if I can clarify. We, as a culture speak and describe things with a current language with a current understanding. I could say, "That pillar of fire was phat!" and the people of my generation would understand that language with it's undertones. I believe Moses recorded Genesis,and that when he did, he used the language that his contemporaries would understand.

Let me see if I can explain this a little better.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father

We see this through american eyes as a father laying naked. However, I believe they saw things a little differently. Let me show you.

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

We see that one should not "uncover" their mother. What is it to "uncover"? You should see the sexual undertones. But, look at how it is described. It is described as "thy fathers nakedness".

So, if we go back in time using the language of the Moses in his day, we could look at the passage: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father two ways.

Ham had some type of a sexual encounter with his Father, or his Mother.

Does that make sense? Please note, I'm not asking you to agree.

 

[DPMartin]

Hi DPMartin,

By "Exodus" language, I am talking about culture as a whole, and not simply referencing the book. Let me see if I can clarify. We, as a culture speak and describe things with a current language with a current understanding. I could say, "That pillar of fire was phat!" and the people of my generation would understand that language with it's undertones. I believe Moses recorded Genesis,and that when he did, he used the language that his contemporaries would understand.

Let me see if I can explain this a little better.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father

We see this through american eyes as a father laying naked. However, I believe they saw things a little differently. Let me show you.

The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

We see that one should not "uncover" their mother. What is it to "uncover"? You should see the sexual undertones. But, look at how it is described. It is described as "thy fathers nakedness".

So, if we go back in time using the language of the Moses in his day, we could look at the passage: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father two ways.

Ham had some type of a sexual encounter with his Father, or his Mother.

Does that make sense? Please note, I'm not asking you to agree.

StoveBolts
thanks for the reply

Relax, we are just talking about the Lord and the scriptures here, I don’t think anybody is going to hell for that do you?

What is first in scripture establishes what is meant or done from there on. What follows doesn’t establish what has preceded, it follows. Nakedness and the shame to hide from the Presence of the Lord God, is establish with Adam and Eve.

I believe I understand what you are getting at. But no I don’t see it. Noah’s day and ways and culture is at lest 400 to 500 years apart and if from the flood I believe it’s over 800 years. Not to mention Egypt’s effects on the Israelites.

What is expressed in the law in Leviticus is of the Lord, note the Law was given by the hand of Moses, but it is Moses that writes down what it is the Lord has said. So it’s truly of the Lord. There are things that the original 12 children of Israel did that later on in the last 4 books there is law against doing.

Bottom line, nakedness is shame.
In association to Noah is God’s Grace that saves from God’s Judgement. Why? It’s the first place were Grace is said in the Bible. Also it’s the first place in scripture were wine is mentioned and the second place were wine is mentioned is when Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (According to rabbinical circles Melchizedek is Shem Noah’s son). And isn’t it the Blood of Christ that not only covers you but washes the sin away, which Jesus said the wine was, and it is Jesus who brought forth bread and wine that He is. And if you are uncovered wouldn’t you be in shame?

 

[handy]

Some questions regarding this event...

Ham was the one who saw his father's nakedness. The scriptures do not mention Canaan being present.

Ham's sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Cush was the eldest, the "heir" in that culture... Canaan a youngest son.

Why did the curse apply to Canaan? Why not Ham, or if not Ham, why not Cush?

 

[Sinthesis]

StoveBolts
thanks for the reply

Relax, we are just talking about the Lord and the scriptures here, I don’t think anybody is going to hell for that do you?

What is first in scripture establishes what is meant or done from there on. What follows doesn’t establish what has preceded, it follows. Nakedness and the shame to hide from the Presence of the Lord God, is establish with Adam and Eve.

I believe I understand what you are getting at. But no I don’t see it. Noah’s day and ways and culture is at lest 400 to 500 years apart and if from the flood I believe it’s over 800 years. Not to mention Egypt’s effects on the Israelites.

What is expressed in the law in Leviticus is of the Lord, note the Law was given by the hand of Moses, but it is Moses that writes down what it is the Lord has said. So it’s truly of the Lord. There are things that the original 12 children of Israel did that later on in the last 4 books there is law against doing.

Bottom line, nakedness is shame.
In association to Noah is God’s Grace that saves from God’s Judgement. Why? It’s the first place were Grace is said in the Bible. Also it’s the first place in scripture were wine is mentioned and the second place were wine is mentioned is when Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (According to rabbinical circles Melchizedek is Shem Noah’s son). And isn’t it the Blood of Christ that not only covers you but washes the sin away, which Jesus said the wine was, and it is Jesus who brought forth bread and wine that He is. And if you are uncovered wouldn’t you be in shame?

This is pretty much on the right track. Sex is not involved in this story, in any way, shape, or form. Putting that errant idea aside it can be revealed that symbolically this story is much deeper than just some sort of tabloid scandal could ever be. Genesis 20-27 actually provides a basic outline for the entire rest of the biblical narrative.:yes

DPMartin has provided the clue to what 'nakedness' means. The next step is to apprehend the symbolic meaning of 'Noah's tent'. It will help if you understand 'The Tabernacle of David'.

Was Noah harsh in his curse? Not if you know what Ham's offense actually is.

 

[stovebolts]

Relax, we are just talking about the Lord and the scriptures here, I don’t think anybody is going to hell for that do you?

Naw, I don't see this as a salvation issue at all. Wow, did I sound argumentative when I posted that? Golly, I sure didn't mean to. I was just trying to articulate myself a little clearer.

Bottom line, nakedness is shame.
In association to Noah is God’s Grace that saves from God’s Judgement. Why? It’s the first place were Grace is said in the Bible. Also it’s the first place in scripture were wine is mentioned and the second place were wine is mentioned is when Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (According to rabbinical circles Melchizedek is Shem Noah’s son). And isn’t it the Blood of Christ that not only covers you but washes the sin away, which Jesus said the wine was, and it is Jesus who brought forth bread and wine that He is. And if you are uncovered wouldn’t you be in shame?

Good post, and it is not that I disagree. But I also see a story taking on many dimensions depending on what angle one approaches the story. So I see both your view and my view both being true. This doesn't have to be one dimensional. Case in point, according to rabinical circles, wine was associated with Noah to show that even one who was found righteous in the site of God was not beyond the ill effects of drunkenness. I'm sure you would also agree to that statement as it is a universal truth. So you see, we can have many truths that come out of a piece of scripture.

I believe I understand what you are getting at. But no I don’t see it. Noah’s day and ways and culture is at lest 400 to 500 years apart and if from the flood I believe it’s over 800 years. Not to mention Egypt’s effects on the Israelites.

I understand. I am not talking about the duration between Noah's day and that of Moses. I am talking about Moses recording the story in contemporary language, just as God have given him to write it.

What is first in scripture establishes what is meant or done from there on. What follows doesn’t establish what has preceded, it follows. Nakedness and the shame to hide from the Presence of the Lord God, is establish with Adam and Eve.

Yes, that is one method of redacting scripture which as you've shown is a valid method. We see this especially in John's writings and in rabinical circles, it was known as a style called something to the effect of "first mentioned". John 3:16, loved. Genesis 22:2, lovest. John does this a lot. But it is not the only way to redact scripture.

I do hope you've taken this as a relaxed reply to you. Hey, I could add some smily faces if it would help :yes

 

[stovebolts]

This is pretty much on the right track. Sex is not involved in this story, in any way, shape, or form. Putting that errant idea aside it can be revealed that symbolically this story is much deeper than just some sort of tabloid scandal could ever be. Genesis 20-27 actually provides a basic outline for the entire rest of the biblical narrative.:yes

DPMartin has provided the clue to what 'nakedness' means. The next step is to apprehend the symbolic meaning of 'Noah's tent'. It will help if you understand 'The Tabernacle of David'.

Was Noah harsh in his curse? Not if you know what Ham's offense actually is.

Synth,

Relax buddy, nobodies going to hell here over the matter ok :nod

That you disagree with what I've written doesn't mean that what I've written is incorrect. It simply means you disagree, yet you have not stated why you disagree based on what I have posted.

I do not disagree with DPmartin, and I think that he brings some good stuff to the table. But providing an additional view does not make what I've presented false. It simply illuminates another perspective.

BTW, I am familiar with the tabernacle and all of it's furnishings as well as the temple David drew up and Solomon built. That being said, I don't claim ultimate knowledge on the matter either. That being said, I only know of the tabernacle at Shiloh when David was around.

 

[stovebolts]

Some questions regarding this event...

Ham was the one who saw his father's nakedness. The scriptures do not mention Canaan being present.

Ham's sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Cush was the eldest, the "heir" in that culture... Canaan a youngest son.

Why did the curse apply to Canaan? Why not Ham, or if not Ham, why not Cush?

Good questions Dora. These are the same questions the sages asked. At lunch, I was reading commentary from the Ramban on the matter. For me, it really made sense. I'm not trying to be stingy, but I'm not going to share it here simply because I know it will cause a dispute.

As far as the sex thing, it is recorded as sodomy in Sanhedrien 70a according to the foot note that points me to Rashi.

 

[handy]

Jeff,

I understand where you're coming from... I disagree mainly due to the fact if Ham was sexual with either his mother or father, is it likely he'd tell his brothers about it?

You've drawn from Exodus to capture possible meanings of nakedness...

We can also look back to the Garden, when Adam and Eve sinned and saw that they were naked and were ashamed...

Noah, is a type of Adam... in the sense that he was the man of righteousness left after God cleansed the world of sin... But, Noah got drunk and exposed his nakedness. Mainly, bringing sin right back into the world again.

Ham coudda, shoudda, woudda covered his father's nakedness and turned to God... but he didn't. He expounded the sin by gazing upon Noah's shame, then dragging his brother's into it.

Just as the sin in the Garden prompted a curse, so this sin does as well.

Which still leaves me wondering, why Canaan?

 

[stovebolts]

Handy,

I draw from Leviticus because Moses wrote the Torah, which includes Genesis. When I write, you know it's me because you understand my writing style and you understand my perspective which carries as much weight as what I write. I could come on as a different user, and you'd spot me right away because you know how I write. Example, when I say baptism, you understand how I mean it, so I don't have to lay it all out every time I use that word. I think it's the same way with Moses. I believe He's telling the story of Noah with words he's already defined in Leviticus.

Which still leaves me wondering, why Canaan?

Is it possible that when we make every view of the bible a symbolic view, we miss the very realness that is in front of our face?

Getting drunk is a sin. Did God create Adam and Eve in a state of shame? Was David dancing around naked a sin? Who did that bring shame to?

But as far as your question about the curse, you might consider these questions.

Which son was Ham to Noah?
Which son was Canaan to Ham?

Anyway, I'm not going to argue who's right and who's wrong. I agree with your gist as well as DPmartins gist. And I think I have enough room to hold all three views nicely.

For me, it was a fun study. Hope you have a good day.

 

[Sinthesis]

Some questions regarding this event...

Ham was the one who saw his father's nakedness. The scriptures do not mention Canaan being present.

Ham's sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Cush was the eldest, the "heir" in that culture... Canaan a youngest son.

Why did the curse apply to Canaan? Why not Ham, or if not Ham, why not Cush?

The curse applied to Ham and all his followers, but it was Canaan whom the Israelites were about to subdue as Moses was writing this down.

 

[handy]

Oh, I find it very interesting! (Insert that nodding smilie guy here!)

And, I think your exegesis is sound as far as looking at the language of all five books, as all five books are attributed to Moses.

Again, I guess my main observation would be, if Ham's sin was sexual in nature, would he go out and tell his brothers...

I also agree that we shouldn't "spiritualize" the story too much... this is recorded as a real event that happened with real people... it's not a parable.

Which was why I've always been curious as to why Canaan...not Ham himself, or even Cush. The idea that Ham was Noah's youngest, therefore the curse went to Ham's youngest makes sense... but why not Ham himself? Perhaps its a question that cannot be answered with the data we have.

 

[stovebolts]

The curse applied to Ham and all his followers, but it was Canaan whom the Israelites were about to subdue as Moses was writing this down.

So your saying Moses was writing to the current generation about their current situation when he wrote the passage in Genesis in regard to Noah? Why then do you reject what Moses said in Leviticus in regard to what Moses said in Genesis in regard to what I've shown, yet you accept what Moses says in Leviticus in regard to what Moses said in Genesis when it supports what your saying?

Just sayin brother... I found this a bit odd.

 

[handy]

The curse applied to Ham and all his followers, but it was Canaan whom the Israelites were about to subdue as Moses was writing this down.

That's a pretty good observation as well...

 

[stovebolts]

but why not Ham himself? Perhaps its a question that cannot be answered with the data we have.

I think the answer is right in front of us, but we can't look at the story as data or we won't find it. Genesis is a story, and the better we understand the story, I think the better we'll see things that are right in front of us the whole time. In the Exodus, God commands the Israelite's to tell their story during passover, and not simply repeat the details of their event.

Anyway, I do think that there are many faucets to scripture and the spiritual aspect is certainly not an aspect we should ignore. I think that you've brought a lot to the discussion as well.

anyway, I'm out of time for the day. Enjoy your weather, I know you guys are having some pretty nice temps over there. We had frost again yesterday.

Talk to ya later.

 

[Sinthesis]

Synth,

Relax buddy, nobodies going to hell here over the matter ok :nod

That you disagree with what I've written doesn't mean that what I've written is incorrect. It simply means you disagree, yet you have not stated why you disagree based on what I have posted.

I do not disagree with DPmartin, and I think that he brings some good stuff to the table. But providing an additional view does not make what I've presented false. It simply illuminates another perspective.

BTW, I am familiar with the tabernacle and all of it's furnishings as well as the temple David drew up and Solomon built. That being said, I don't claim ultimate knowledge on the matter either. That being said, I only know of the tabernacle at Shiloh when David was around.

I'm so calm that I actually do have a coffee right now.:morning

Of course you can believe what you like, but I'll try to present a better interpretation that reflects the rest of the biblical story.

When deciding what is meant by Noah's nakedness, it is a mistake to look at its use in Leviticus as a direct synonym. This is because where nakedness is restricted, in every case it is combined with a form of the verb 'uncover'. Ham did not uncover Noah's nakedness; Ham perceived Noah's nakedness and blabbed about it.

Nakedness is only perceived through original sin. It its the shame in being exposed as a sinner; made in God's image yet only human.

Ham had contempt for Noah's human faults and allowed it to corrupt his view of Noah's God. This corruption still is evident today, though there is now a remedy as prophesied through the action of Shem and Japheth.