Curse of Ham

[JoyE]

I started watching the video, but decided I didn't want to finish it.

I think it is clear that Adam's nakedness was simply being uncovered, as Genesis states; and this reiterates it:
[Gen 9:23 KJV] – 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.

Disrespect of one's father is certainly breaking the Fifth Commandment, as I would infer that Ham was making fun of his father's being uncovered.

[JoyE]

Make that NOAH.

[Soloist]

Wife: It’s interesting the early Church fathers talk about it, Justin Martyr talked about it being fulfilled when Israel took over Canaan. Origin said something about it not race related, and both of them were talking about Canaan. I think Origin assumed Canaan saw first and told his dad. Both of them seemed to think it was just seeing his father naked, and I personally think people are reading too much into it to get something else from it and if the Bible doesn’t choose to elaborate, I don’t see why we should.

Augustine initially wrote about the curse being on Ham, and then later retracted that and said that it was just on Canaan.

It just really upsets me finding out how common this teaching is (relating to black people), that it ends up getting passed on to children, and specifically when people don’t care to second-guess it when somebody brings up the inconsistencies. I personally don’t think dark skin is unattractive, so I don’t see why it would be a mark of a curse from God as though it’s ugly. I also think that it seems to be a bit of a stretch that Ham means burnt or black, and it’s interesting that this didn’t really start making headroads in Christiandom until the birth of Islam, which made specific references to it.

[Coifi]

... I personally think people are reading too much into it to get something else from it and if the Bible doesn’t choose to elaborate, I don’t see why we should ...

I think the Bible does elaborate in Leviticus 18. I suppose you could say that they aren't related to one another. Is that what you would suggest?

If the concern is that this interpretation somehow implies some kind of genetically inherited curse, I think you can disregard this notion as it literally could not have been a thought ancient people had. Ancient people did not know about genes and how traits are passed on. A genetic curse is reading modern science into the text.

The curse of Ham falls on the people who do the works of Ham. This language is all through the Bible - Old and New Testaments. This is how someone like Rahab could escape the judgement of God against the Canaanites and the other evil inhabitants of the promised land. She repented of the works of Ham (idol worship involving gross sexual sin) and became inheritors of the promises to Abraham, even becoming one of the descendants of Jesus. As for the New Testament, I'd refer you to John 8:39. This idea is explicitly laid out.

It is on this basis that we can also say the book of Joshua does not condone genocide.

[ken_sylvania]

... I personally think people are reading too much into it to get something else from it and if the Bible doesn’t choose to elaborate, I don’t see why we should ...

I think the Bible does elaborate in Leviticus 18. I suppose you could say that they aren't related to one another. Is that what you would suggest?

Genesis says that Noah got drunk, lay uncovered within his tent, and that Ham saw it and went and told others about it. Also, that Ham's brothers went in backwards with a coat over their shoulders and covered Noah.
Leviticus 18 gives prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" of various near-of-kin people, including reasons why. The text here gives us absolutely no reason to interpret this as saying that when the Bible refers to a man being naked, it is actually talking about the man's wife instead.

The curse of Ham falls on the people who do the works of Ham. This language is all through the Bible - Old and New Testaments. This is how someone like Rahab could escape the judgement of God against the Canaanites and the other evil inhabitants of the promised land.

Except that Ham wasn't cursed...

She repented of the works of Ham (idol worship involving gross sexual sin) and became inheritors of the promises to Abraham, even becoming one of the descendants of Jesus.

??? One of the descendants of Jesus???? The Bible talks about how we can become sons of God, but I can't think of anything saying we can become sons or daughters of Jesus.

[Coifi]

... I personally think people are reading too much into it to get something else from it and if the Bible doesn’t choose to elaborate, I don’t see why we should ...

I think the Bible does elaborate in Leviticus 18. I suppose you could say that they aren't related to one another. Is that what you would suggest?

Genesis says that Noah got drunk, lay uncovered within his tent, and that Ham saw it and went and told others about it. Also, that Ham's brothers went in backwards with a coat over their shoulders and covered Noah.
Leviticus 18 gives prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" of various near-of-kin people, including reasons why. The text here gives us absolutely no reason to interpret this as saying that when the Bible refers to a man being naked, it is actually talking about the man's wife instead.

The curse of Ham falls on the people who do the works of Ham. This language is all through the Bible - Old and New Testaments. This is how someone like Rahab could escape the judgement of God against the Canaanites and the other evil inhabitants of the promised land.

Except that Ham wasn't cursed...

She repented of the works of Ham (idol worship involving gross sexual sin) and became inheritors of the promises to Abraham, even becoming one of the descendants of Jesus.

??? One of the descendants of Jesus???? The Bible talks about how we can become sons of God, but I can't think of anything saying we can become sons or daughters of Jesus.

I'll respond to the other things said eventually, but I want to issue a correction. I meant to say one of His ancestors NOT descendants. I've often swapped the two. My apologies.

[Coifi]

... I personally think people are reading too much into it to get something else from it and if the Bible doesn’t choose to elaborate, I don’t see why we should ...

I think the Bible does elaborate in Leviticus 18. I suppose you could say that they aren't related to one another. Is that what you would suggest?

Genesis says that Noah got drunk, lay uncovered within his tent, and that Ham saw it and went and told others about it. Also, that Ham's brothers went in backwards with a coat over their shoulders and covered Noah.
Leviticus 18 gives prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" of various near-of-kin people, including reasons why. The text here gives us absolutely no reason to interpret this as saying that when the Bible refers to a man being naked, it is actually talking about the man's wife instead.

The curse of Ham falls on the people who do the works of Ham. This language is all through the Bible - Old and New Testaments. This is how someone like Rahab could escape the judgement of God against the Canaanites and the other evil inhabitants of the promised land.

Except that Ham wasn't cursed...

She repented of the works of Ham (idol worship involving gross sexual sin) and became inheritors of the promises to Abraham, even becoming one of the descendants of Jesus.

??? One of the descendants of Jesus???? The Bible talks about how we can become sons of God, but I can't think of anything saying we can become sons or daughters of Jesus.

I had written up a full argument for the position...and then lost the content because of VPN issue. Ugh.

Here is what I remember from my TL;DR.

I think my position makes the most sense of the immediate text because it justifies Noah by making the object of the curse the offspring of an illicit union. This is similar to the consequence of David's sin with Bathsheba.

I think it also makes the most narrative sense as it provides the explanation and justification for the judgement against the Canaanites. The people God is judging through the Israelites are the offspring of an illicit sexual union and they continue in illicit sexual unions. This is directly analogous to the Moabites and the Amorites who are the illicit offspring of Lot and his daughters. They, too, continue in gross sexual sin (see the Baal of Peor episode in Numbers). So Ham is a part of the start of this pattern seen throughout the Old Testament.

Ken, I'd be curious what reason you would give for Noah cursing Canaan and not Ham. I do not see how that would make narrative or moral sense apart from the interpretation Swiss and I have put forth.

[Soloist]

Wife: i’m not going to get into that side of things because I think it’s speculation and not actually pertinent to my point. It’s actually interesting; I found out that the origin of the black skin being a curse was from the Talmud, where they say that Noah told everyone on the boat to be abstinent including the animals because of all the death going on outside and Ham, the dog, and the raven were the ones who did not obey. I’m not going to elaborate all of it, but that’s why they say Noah cursed Canaan to be black. Eventually, that myth expanded to all the tribes of Ham I guess.

Anyways, that plus some of the other stories in the Babylonian Talmud are simply ridiculous and sound like they could belong in some pagan myth book, not to mention the fact that it seems like nobody cares about those of Egyptian descent, and would probably go with the idea that God seemed to like Egypt other than the horrible experience that led to the exodus. Also, it seemed like both Kush/Ethiopia and Egypt were actually close allies with the Jews most of the time, and there were some promises made to them.

Psa 68:31  Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.

Anyways, the widespread mess of this myth and some of the results I’ve seen come out of it are just upsetting, and I’d like to see it die out among the plain people.

[JohnH]

Wife: i’m not going to get into that side of things because I think it’s speculation and not actually pertinent to my point. It’s actually interesting; I found out that the origin of the black skin being a curse was from the Talmud, where they say that Noah told everyone on the boat to be abstinent including the animals because of all the death going on outside and Ham, the dog, and the raven were the ones who did not obey. I’m not going to elaborate all of it, but that’s why they say Noah cursed Canaan to be black. Eventually, that myth expanded to all the tribes of Ham I guess.

Anyways, that plus some of the other stories in the Babylonian Talmud are simply ridiculous and sound like they could belong in some pagan myth book, not to mention the fact that it seems like nobody cares about those of Egyptian descent, and would probably go with the idea that God seemed to like Egypt other than the horrible experience that led to the exodus. Also, it seemed like both Kush/Ethiopia and Egypt were actually close allies with the Jews most of the time, and there were some promises made to them.

Psa 68:31  Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.

Anyways, the widespread mess of this myth and some of the results I’ve seen come out of it are just upsetting, and I’d like to see it die out among the plain people.

Interesting. I didn’t know the Talmud started that.

[ken_sylvania]

I think the Bible does elaborate in Leviticus 18. I suppose you could say that they aren't related to one another. Is that what you would suggest?

Genesis says that Noah got drunk, lay uncovered within his tent, and that Ham saw it and went and told others about it. Also, that Ham's brothers went in backwards with a coat over their shoulders and covered Noah.
Leviticus 18 gives prohibitions against "uncovering the nakedness" of various near-of-kin people, including reasons why. The text here gives us absolutely no reason to interpret this as saying that when the Bible refers to a man being naked, it is actually talking about the man's wife instead.

The curse of Ham falls on the people who do the works of Ham. This language is all through the Bible - Old and New Testaments. This is how someone like Rahab could escape the judgement of God against the Canaanites and the other evil inhabitants of the promised land.

Except that Ham wasn't cursed...

She repented of the works of Ham (idol worship involving gross sexual sin) and became inheritors of the promises to Abraham, even becoming one of the descendants of Jesus.

??? One of the descendants of Jesus???? The Bible talks about how we can become sons of God, but I can't think of anything saying we can become sons or daughters of Jesus.

I had written up a full argument for the position...and then lost the content because of VPN issue. Ugh.

Here is what I remember from my TL;DR.

I think my position makes the most sense of the immediate text because it justifies Noah by making the object of the curse the offspring of an illicit union. This is similar to the consequence of David's sin with Bathsheba.

And yet, to get to your position, you have to ignore the plain narrative in the text - that Noah was lying naked in his tent because he had gotten drunk. There's not a lick of an indication in the text that Noah getting drunk made Ham sleep with Noah's wife.

I think it also makes the most narrative sense as it provides the explanation and justification for the judgement against the Canaanites. The people God is judging through the Israelites are the offspring of an illicit sexual union and they continue in illicit sexual unions. This is directly analogous to the Moabites and the Amorites who are the illicit offspring of Lot and his daughters. They, too, continue in gross sexual sin (see the Baal of Peor episode in Numbers). So Ham is a part of the start of this pattern seen throughout the Old Testament.

The Amorites were descendants of Canaan, not of Lot. You may be confusing the Amorites with the Ammonites. However, regarding the Moabites and Ammonites, we find the Lord specifically telling the Israelites not to attack them or take their land. Then, the Lord does tell Israel not to seek the good of those people, but he says specifically why, and it's not because they are the offspring of an illicit union - it's because of how they treated the Israelites.

Ken, I'd be curious what reason you would give for Noah cursing Canaan and not Ham. I do not see how that would make narrative or moral sense apart from the interpretation Swiss and I have put forth.

What kind of "moral sense" does it make to curse a baby because of how he was conceived?

These suggestions are not all original with me, but could it be that Canaan was Ham's only son at that time? Or perhaps the son that was most like his father in disrespecting his elders? Or, (this is speculation, but not more speculative that the other wild story and at least it doesn't require ignoring parts of the account), was Canaan somehow involved in gleefully telling his grandpa about what happened? Josephus thought that maybe Noah was reluctant to curse his son, so placed the curse on his grandson instead.
Any one of these would make better narrative sense than pretending the account is about something different than what it says.