Covering nakedness
God saved Noah from the worldwide flood in one of the greatest stories ever told, and then Noah went out and got drunk. That should certify the Bible in the genre of realism and not religious propaganda.
But this is not what interests me here. Noah was on balance a good guy, as proved by the compliment God gives him in Ezekiel: “If I send a pestilence into that land and pour out my wrath upon it with blood, … even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter” (14:19,20).
What interests me is the three sons’ response to their father’s little lapse. “Ham … saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then 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” (Genesis 9:22,23).
Have you ever done something pretty bad, and then hoped to God that your friend who knew about it wouldn’t spread it around—you know, “pray about it” with someone? I don’t mean that your friend should be involved in a “cover up” but rather that your friend should “cover” you. There is a difference, and wisdom and love will show us when to do an Ephesians 5:11 (expose it) and when to do a Proverbs 17:9 (cover it).
Noah was on to something when he blessed his sons who covered his nakedness. When a neighbor sins, we can be gleeful or we can mourn. We can broadcast or we can cover. We can hate to criticize and do it only with pain, or we can revel in it.


WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study


















back to top33 Comments to “Covering nakedness”
The fact that the Bible says Noah got drunk hardly proves that everything in the Bible is true.. Much of the Bible is true; much of it isn’t. And it certainly qualifies as religious propaganda. By the way, much of the “true” stuff is borrowed from even older religious traditions.
Report comment as offensive
Andree never said this story proves the Bible is true, NT. She wrote that it should certify the Bible in the genre of realism and not religious propaganda.
Gee, it doesn’t take you very long to start twisting someone’s words, does it!
Thanks for the reminder, Andree, that we need to practice what we preach and not rejoice when another believer stumbles. There but by the grace of God go we . . .
Report comment as offensive
LMBO!
Report comment as offensive
Well, if the story were true, the Noah would be a major jerk. Ham didn’t set out intending to see his father naked; Noah left himself exposed and Ham accidentally wandered into the scene.
Rather than recognizing his own fault in this, Noah blamed Ham. And to make matters worse, he cursed, not Ham, but Canaan, Ham’s son, who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
And apparently that charmer YHWH was in agreement, because the curse took.
(Funny that the daughters of Lot, who not only uncovered their drunken father’s nakedness but somehow managed to have sex with him* and bear his children, came under no curse. That YHWH sure is unpredictable.)
* If there were any surer signal that a story is not true than the author of the Lot story expecting readers to believe that it’s possible to have sex with a drunk, unconscious man, I don’t know what it would be.
Report comment as offensive
Jehovah was certainly one strange dude. But, say what you want about him, he had quite a sense of humor. Remember the time the plague of hemorrhoids hit, and before Jehovah would remove the plague, he made them make sculptures of the hemorrhoids? How’d you like to be the guy that job fell to:
Darn it, Jedidiah, will you hold still!?
Plus, Jehovah also gets the credit for making Outkast, who, once again, thinks he’s refuted me, and once again not only is wrong, but made a fool of himself trying.
Report comment as offensive
I am more taken with the point of the story. Ham felt a need to proclaim his dad’s weakness while the other two were not wanting to add to his father’s shame. It makes me think about the larger debate when public figures have moral failures and the result is chatted about much more than we need. I’m tired of references to former President Clinton and Monica. I don’t need to pile it on John Edwards and his personal failings.
I’m so glad my shameful activities didn’t make national news.
Report comment as offensive
Amen, Outdeep. We serve a risen Saviour!
Report comment as offensive
Outdeep, you’re not a national figure, so you have nothing to worry about. Besides, if you’d rather people didn’t go around talking about the shameful things you do, do what I do. Don’t do shameful things. It works wonders.
Report comment as offensive
The thing is Outdeep, the story doesn’t say why Ham told his brothers. Maybe he was proclaiming his father’s weakness, but maybe he was warning them so they too wouldn’t see. Or maybe he was asking what he should do, since he had accidentally seen already.
In any event, his son had nothing to do with it, wasn’t even on the scene apparently, so why do Noah and YHWH curse the son?
Report comment as offensive
Most presume it was for ill-reason he told his brothers, not for his father’s or brother’s benefit. Otherwise, the story wouldn’t make sense.
Report comment as offensive
The story doesn’t make sense even with that assumption.
But it is just an assumption.
Report comment as offensive
In narrative and story, we do make assumptions. I just finished reading Tennessee William’s Night of the Iguana. He doesn’t spell out every reason why Shannon, Maxine or Hannah said or did what they did. The audience tries to understand the characters, hear what they are saying and to the best of their ability makes assumptions as to their motivation.
I think Noah’s reaction was to the fact that Ham spread about his failings as opposed to the other brothers who kept it in the family. Makes perfect sense to me. You are right that the text doesn’t spell it out and it is very possible that Ham was innocently discussing getting his father into AA but I doubt it.
Whether you think what Noah did was a right or wrong is another matter. Narrative generally doesn’t tell whether the the character acted in a good way. It just tells what they do.
I think Andree’s interpretation of the story is spot on.
Report comment as offensive
Has anyone else noticed that a smiley face at the end of a twisted knife doesn’t mitigate the pain?
Report comment as offensive
FWIW, my pastor-husband tells me that from his studies of the culture of Bible times, it appears that it was considered much more shameful to see someone else’s nakedness than to be naked oneself. That seems very strange to us, but that is apparently how they viewed things. So even if Ham didn’t do it intentionally, having seen his father’s nakedness counted against him in their culture.
I do consider it unreasonable for Noah to have cursed Ham’s son - just because such a curse might have been justified in that culture doesn’t make it right. And as Outdeep pointed out in #12, the passage doesn’t say whether Noah was right or not.
Report comment as offensive
One of the reason the Bible speaks against seeing nakedness might correlate with the negatives of viewing pornography?
Report comment as offensive
Right, Outkast. And inadvertently stumbling across your naked, passed-out father is sooo much the same thing as seeing pornography.
Report comment as offensive
Outdeep: I think Andree’s interpretation of the story is spot on.
I hope your fellow moral Christians agree with you, so this site can stop being obsessed with exposing and exaggerating the moral failings of every Democrat or non-Christian and with covering up or minimizing the moral failings of every Christian Republican.
Report comment as offensive
Actually, it can be, Steve. Some people accidently stumble across pornography the first time, and then find themselves hooked.
Report comment as offensive
Well Outkast, then why did Lot’s daughters — who not only saw their father’s nakedness but caused it in the first place AND incestuously raped him while he was unconscious — suffered no consequences?
(According to the story anyway … as I said earlier, I don’t believe this is really possible.)
Report comment as offensive
Pauline at #14: I do consider it unreasonable for Noah to have cursed Ham’s son - just because such a curse might have been justified in that culture doesn’t make it right. And as Outdeep pointed out in #12, the passage doesn’t say whether Noah was right or not.
Well unless you believe Noah had magical powers, the only way the curse would be effective is if YHVH heard and honored it, right? And since it was effective, in that the nations that descended from Canaan (Genesis 10:15-19) were Israel’s enemies, YHVH must have approved.
(My view is that the story is a myth written to explain/justify Israel’s enmity with the various races and nations listed, but I know Bible literalists won’t consider that possibility.)
Report comment as offensive
I’m not sure, Steve, I wasn’t around back then.
Report comment as offensive
I’m not sure whether it’s correct or not, but one explanation I have heard is from this verse.
Ge 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. As I heard it, the one talking about this said that Noah “knew what his son had done unto him. He (person talking) was thinking that since the Bible (the KJV and others like it, in this instance) uses euphemisms for certain things in Scripture like “and he went in unto her, and she conceived…,” “and Adam knew his wife,” and others, this instance may have been speaking of more than just “seeing nakedness.” As to whether that’s the right explanation or not, I don’t know, and I will just leave it open as a possibility unless I have evidence that it’s impossible.
Report comment as offensive
Oops, sorry about the italics.
Report comment as offensive
Thanks RIO, I’ve also heard that explanation of the passage.
Report comment as offensive
Rio: That actually might be the case. Good thought.
Still doesn’t explain why Noah cursed Canaan instead of Ham, but it would shed some light on the whole event.
Report comment as offensive
The key to the story is the same key to every story in the Old Testament, i.e. Gal 3:24. Everything in the law is about the Messiah. God chose bizarre methods for slowly revealing his plan to come to earth in the flesh.
The curse of Canaan has to do with God preparing a place for the Messiah to arrive. He also prepared a people and a point in time. Hundreds of small revelations to various people in various tribes and stations of life paint a complete picture of Jesus Christ.
Was Ham’s sin so bad? No, he was an actor in a play for God’s grand demonstration two thousand years later. Ham made fun of his father and God had some fun with him, though God’s fun is pretty serious stuff!
The curse of Ham’s lineage foreshadows the curse of Adam’s lineage that Christ himself would take on. (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22) Canaan’s curse would be a theme for centuries as God prepared his people for slavery and eventual redemption.
People write books with pen and paper in a short time. God writes books with the blood of his people over thousands of years.
Report comment as offensive
So Xion, Canaan was just an innocent pawn in God’s scheme? Cursed just to set the stage for something to happen thousands of years later and not because he’d actually done anything wrong?
Nice fellow, your God.
Report comment as offensive
What have we done to deserve the curse of our forefather, Adam? Aren’t we just innocent pawns according to that reckoning, Steve?
The fact in, we all play a part in the redemption of creation.
In the case of Ham, what did Ham have for lasting riches but his posterity? Canaan was Ham’s posterity. Since man’s offspring (hence his pposterity) is conceived in nakedness, it is a fitting curse.
Report comment as offensive
Better to die in God’s will than live outside of God’s will.
Report comment as offensive
Klasko: What have we done to deserve the curse of our forefather, Adam? Aren’t we just innocent pawns according to that reckoning, Steve?
Yep! Another good reason to be skeptical of traditional Christian theology.
Your argument is that Canaan was cursed because he was Ham’s “riches,” i.e. property? You are actually arguing that a moral and just God should honor a curse of another human being for such a petty reason?
Report comment as offensive
So if the Noah story isn’t true, and it obviously isn’t, what else in the Bible isn’t true?
Report comment as offensive
You’re basing post #31 on a false premise, DCL. The Noah story is true.
Report comment as offensive
The Noah story IS true, if by “true” you mean made up.
Report comment as offensive