Out of His Belly

Genesis 9 does not tell us what Ham’s intention was when he “saw the nakedness” of his father, Noah. Did he steal Noah’s robe of authority? Did he sleep with his own mother? Perhaps there is a third solution, based upon clues found elsewhere in Genesis, which combines both of these possibilities but also offers something new.

And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone out from him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, “Who touched my garments?” (Mark 5:30)

When it comes to understanding a tricky passage in the Bible, it is wise to first identify its structure. The covenant-literary architecture often reveals the Author’s intent since it allows all other biblical texts to shed light upon the text.

Genesis 9:20-29 is arranged according to the five legal steps of biblical covenants, and each of its smaller sections I have labeled with what I call the Bible Matrix, which corresponds the process of the Creation Week with its expression in the Tabernacle architecture and in Israel’s annual festal calendar (from Leviticus 23).

Genesis 9:20-29

TRANSCENDENCE

Creation: (Sabbath – Genesis – Ark of the Testimony)

Noah began to be a master of the soil, and he planted a vineyard and he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he was uncovered within his tent.

Firstly, we should notice the allusions to Eden in Noah’s planting of a garden and his subsequent nakedness. Many assume that this text indicates righteous Noah sinned, but there is plenty to suggest otherwise. James Jordan writes:

…Noah, having come to a time of sabbath rest, “drank of the wine [of his New-Garden vineyard] and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent” (Gen. 9:21). Noah’s robe was a sign of his office and authority. In the privacy of his tent, he laid it aside. There was no sin in this; after all, he was still covered by the “garment” of the tent itself.¹James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis, 51-52.

Jordan also highlights the crucial significance of the wine. Priesthood and Kingdom were signified in the Garden by Eden’s two trees, in the Land by grain and fruit, and in the World by bread and wine. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (or kingly, judicial wisdom) were prototypical “bread and wine.” Wine is a symbol of kingdom, and Noah’s name means “Bringer of Rest.”

He got “drunk,” but all this means is that he became relaxed and went to sleep… In the Lord’s Supper, God wants Christians to relax and drink wine in His presence. Such rest comes at the end of our duties, not during them of course, but it is the promise of rest for every Christian toiler.²Jordan, Primeval Saints, 49.

Unlike Adam, Noah was faithful and personally entered into God’s rest. After the demise of Eden, God established in Noah a new altar (Court), a new ministry (Holy Place) and a new Sanctuary (Most Holy Place).

HIERARCHY

Division: (Passover – Exodus – Veil)

And saw Ham, the father of Canaan, the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.

The literary structure reveals the purpose of many words and phrases which might otherwise be considered redundant. The inclusion of a mention of Ham’s son by name not only foreshadows Noah’s imminent judgment concerning the inheritance (this is the “Exodus” stanza, and Canaan is later cursed to become a slave), but it also prefigures the physical sign upon all Israelite males (as Isaacs from a barren womb made fruitful) which tied them to the promise of Canaan’s land (a barren land made fruitful).

Noah’s nakedness is the unrighteous removal of a veil, and the two brothers here are “legal witnesses,” for blessing and cursing, which again hints at the purpose of the passage. The overall theme, however, is the untimely removal of a “firmament” or barrier, a Division that the Father has put in place.

ETHICS (Priesthood, Kingdom, Prophecy)

Ascension: (Firstfruits – Leviticus – Altar/Land)

And took Shem and Japheth a garment, and laid on their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father.

Another Ascension passage, famous for its strangeness, comes to mind, which may illuminate what is going on here. It comes right after the Ten Words:

“And you shall not go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it.” (Exodus 20:26)

The structure gives the account a sacrificial motif, but how is Noah’s nakedness linked to the Altar/Land? Adam and Eve were naked and vulnerable before God and each other in the Garden, but they needed to be robed — invested with office — before they could proceed into the Land with God’s blessing. Due to sin, their robe was a covering of death and the promised dominion was sanctioned with humbling limitations. Only then did God open the future to them with the firstfruits of the Land and the womb.

Ascension: (Firstfruits – Leviticus – Table/Womb)

And their faces were backward, and the nakedness of their father they saw not.

The word “face” is frequently a reference to the Golden Table of “Facebread,” including the veiling of Moses’ face in Exodus 34:35. The one who speaks directly with God also speaks for God, and like Moses in later history, Noah qualified himself by faith to become a judge, that is, a mediator of blessings and curses (Sanctions). The final line of the stanza hints that these brothers will be blessed.

Testing: (Pentecost – Numbers – Lampstand)

And awoke Noah from his wine and knew what had been done to him by his younger son.

Since Noah was invested as a judge by God, he was given the authority to execute murderers. This is because he was not a vengeful ruler like Lamech, but understood both justice and mercy. Noah not only knew that his sanctuary had been violated, since he was now covered in the garment (Priesthood) and perceived that Ham was the culprit (Kingdom) but he also understood Ham’s intentions (Prophecy). Either Noah and Ham had previously argued over the blessing, or God now revealed it to him.

Maturity: (Trumpets – Deuteronomy – Incense)

And he said, “Cursed be Canaan. A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

Again, the structure is helpful. Trumpets is the “summoning of the troops,” prefigured negatively in the union of Joseph’s band of brothers against him. It is very significant that it is not Ham who is cursed but Canaan. Some have taken this to mean that Ham slept with Noah’s wife, and Canaan was thus cursed because he was the result of incest (like Ammon and Moab). It is unlikely that this is the case, since Noah only just woke up. There is no indication of a gap of nine months, or that Noah is naming a yet unborn Canaan here in his curse. “A servant of servants” at the center of the sentence/stanza is an ironic take on “king of kings.” It is the same as the curse on the serpent in Eden, which gives us yet another clue as to what Ham’s sin actually was.

OATH/SANCTIONS

Conquest: (Atonement – Joshua – Mediators: Laver, sacrifices and High Priest)

And he said, “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Canaan shall be the servant to him.

The Oath/Sanctions section contains two blessings, which correspond to the two approaches of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, first for the priesthood (the God of Shem) and then the people (the ministry of Shem). Shem is made the priestly head (the Semites) and Japheth multiplied as the nations which would be gathered into Shem’s tabernacle. In his three sons, the three level ministry of Noah was measured out as a three level social world. The curse upon Canaan is repeated in both of the blessings.

God shall make wide for Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. Canaan shall be the servant to him.”

The phrase “shall make wide” has a connotation of inheritance. Shem would become the Abrahamic “Garden-Sanctuary,” while Canaanites would continue Cain’s claim to a city before God’s time in the Land. Japhethites would populate the rest of the World, and they would eventually be blessed in Abraham, a descendant of Shem.

SUCCESSION

Glorification: (Booths – Rest and Rule)

The passage ends with a stanza for the Succession of Noah, and the Hebrew recapitulates Genesis 1, which makes Noah a new Adam, the source of a new humanity. Noah’s years after the flood are a “three” and a “half,” and his entire span is a “nine” (a multiplied three) and a “half.” Although Noah is a better Adam, he is not the Christ. Even Noah, the first qualified priest-king, was denied ultimate rest for now, so the final line of the stanza is missing.

The Sin of Ham

James Jordan asserts that Ham’s sin was not sexual. Instead, it consisted of mocking his father and inviting his brothers to seize the robe of authority, an offer that they rejected by lifting up the robe and re-covering their father.

The subsequent verses give us all we need to reconstruct what Ham said: He advocated taking over rule and authority from Noah. The symbol of such authority was the robe, and by re-robing their father, Shem and Japheth rejected Ham’s suggestion. The curse on Canaan to be a slave and a servant fittingly matches the sin of Ham: Canaan will have his rule and authority stripped from him.³James B. Jordan, The Sin of Ham and the Curse of Canaan, Biblical Horizons Nºs 96-98.

Peter Leithart discusses the possibility of maternal incest by Ham, linking the nakedness of Noah to the prohibitions against “uncoverings” in Leviticus 20.⁴See Peter J. Leithart, Noah’s Nakedness, www.leithart.com, May 27, 2005. Ham’s motivation would then be similar to that of Absalom in his seizure of David’s concubines,5 perhaps incorporating the theft of the robe as proof of Ham’s claim to Succession.⁵For more discussion concerning seed and Succession, see “Big Love: A History of Stolen Fruit” in Michael Bull, Inquiétude: Essays for a People Without Eyes.

However, the text remains as opaque as ever, and unlike the account of Lot’s daughters, where wine was also involved, there is no statement that Ham’s wife was barren. The prohibition against maternal incest in Leviticus 20:11 does include uncovering one’s father’s nakedness, but here there is no mention of Noah’s wife, either in the description of the transgression or in the subsequent condemnation. Nakedness is indeed common to both, but perhaps that relates to the Sanctuary rather than the specific transgression. The sin in Eden concerned future children as an inheritance, but Noah already had children. History had moved on. The sin in the Sanctuary of Noah was likely related but also a further development.

The structure of the passage, the sacred architectures of the book of Genesis, and some later verses in Genesis might provide another answer, one that incorporates both the concept of the robe (Oath) and the womb (Sanctions).

Firstly, some sacred architecture. James Jordan writes:

The situation is just like that in the Tabernacle. God is enthroned naked in the Holy of Holies, but the priests are never to see Him. When they move the Tabernacle, they unhook the Veil and carry it backwards to cover the Throne. When they set up the Tabernacle, they pull off the Veil carefully and walk forward and hook it up without looking. On the Day of Coverings (Lev. 16), when Aaron does go into the Holy of Holies, God wraps Himself in His cloud. God is not to be seen in His tent, but God does speak from His throne. The same is true of Noah: when he awakes, he speaks.⁶James B. Jordan, The Sin of Ham Revisited, Biblical Horizons blog, May 15, 2010.

The Court of God’s Man

In the “holy place” of Noah’s microcosmic household, his three sons were given social offices (Forming, Filling, Future). Concerning their inheritance, these found expression in a “geographical” household. Notice the symmetry between Noah’s sleep and Noah’s rule, and between Ham’s violation and Canaan’s curse. The cutting off of Canaan at Conquest was ultimately fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.

So, righteous Noah is the judge of all the earth, the Master resting behind the Veil. Ham is the serpent in the Garden, a false witness. Noah’s faithful sons enter the tent with eyes averted to become the “cherubic” legal witnesses.

The subsequent Noahic narrative follows the same pattern as that of the previous Adamic world. There is a “kingdom” sin in the Garden (Ham) and a “city” sin in the Land (the tower of Babel), but this time a global judgment was averted through God’s call of Abraham, establishing a “microcosmic” land and sea, Israel and the nations as a sacrificial “social” substitute for the Creation.

With this Adamic link in mind, Jordan tells us that Ham’s sin related to investiture, as did Adam’s (Oath). The material Leithart shares implies that the sin concerned fruitfulness, namely, Canaan (Sanctions). Jordan also shows us that the architecture is later replicated in the Tabernacle. So, what was it that Ham sought? What is it that ties the Sanctuary to both investiture and offspring?

A Deathbed Will

The end of the passage concerns generational covenant blessings, so it becomes apparent that this is what Ham was seeking. Ham was the youngest son (Genesis 9:24) and Japheth the oldest (Genesis 10:21). It would also explain why Ham told his brothers when he left the tent: he had stolen something not only from Noah but also from them. If he had committed maternal incest, there would be no way to know if his mother had conceived, and thus not much to boast about. And, as mentioned above, there is no mention of her presence, unlike the detail given in the account of Lot and his daughters.

However, there are two other texts in Genesis which might be associated with what Ham actually did, and they are both related to oaths concerning covenant Succession.

So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him concerning this matter. (Genesis 24:9)

And when the time drew near that Israel must die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, “If now I have found favor in your sight, put your hand under my thigh and promise to deal kindly and truly with me. Do not bury me in Egypt, but let me lie with my fathers. Carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying place.” He answered, “I will do as you have said.” And he said, “Swear to me”; and he swore to him. Then Israel bowed himself upon the head of his bed. (Genesis 47:29-31)

Generational covenant blessings required the one being blessed to put his hand “under the thigh” of the one doing the blessing. Some believe this involved the younger touching the testicles of the elder. The proven fruitfulness of the father was being transferred to, identified with, the son. The word “thigh” also relates to the fruitfulness of females:

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people. (Numbers 5:27)

The most likely scenario, given what is mentioned in the text, and taking its structure into account, is that Ham mistook Noah’s blessed sleep for a “near death” state, and seized the apparent opportunity. However, it was a covenantal “deep sleep” like that of Adam and Abraham, both of which took place that a bridal body might be constructed, Eve (the multiplier) in the Garden and Abraham’s multiplied seed in the Land.

Without Noah’s blessing (as priest-king), there was no sacrificial covering for sin, and the curse upon Land and womb prevailed. It makes sense that Ham would attempt to steal the verbal blessing (Oath) from Noah’s firstborn for his own firstborn son before Noah expired, rendering Canaan the ruler of the nations (Sanctions).

Just as Adam’s theft of fruit led to a curse upon the fruit of the Land and the womb which had been promised to him, so Ham’s attempted theft of these blessings led to curses concerning the Land and upon his offspring.

Although there is no mention of the division of land, that is indeed how it was manifested. Genesis 5 ends a fivefold covenant cycle with a genealogy (Succession) and Genesis 1-10 comprise a greater cycle with a greater genealogy. Just as the Land of Canaan was later divided among the tribes of Israel, so in Genesis 10:25 the land was divided in the days of Peleg, with Japheth getting the lion’s share of this Noahic inheritance as the firstborn.

Both Adam’s and Ham’s sins were an attempt to hijack “the will of the father” concerning fruitfulness, that is, the fulfillment of covenant promises. The irony is that the Lord later blesses a holy deception, sanctioning the theft of the Abrahamic Succession from faithless firstborn Esau and his Canaanite wives by blameless Jacob and his faithful mother. The difference is that here in Genesis 9 it was not the firstborn who was unfaithful.

This theme continues into the New Testament, where the focus shifts more obviously from the sons of men to the Sons of God. Procreation (physical seed: generations) is always “the will of the father,” but re-creation (spiritual seed: regeneration) is the will of the heavenly Father, who opened Noah’s and Isaac’s eyes, cursing Canaan but blessing Jacob. Beginning with Abel, personal faith superseded birth order in the plan of God, as Jacob demonstrated in his wise investiture of Joseph (Oath: Genesis 37:3) and his inspired “switched” blessing upon Joseph’s sons (Sanctions: Genesis 48:14).

The Gospel of John contrasts the first birth (Sanctions/ circumcision) with the second birth (Oath/baptism), that is, nature and supernature, for us:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

The themes of blessing and inheritance are important for understanding the New Testament. Ham’s commandeering of his father’s will on his “deathbed” is very similar to that of the prodigal son in Jesus’ parable, the secondborn who demanded his inheritance, squandered it, and ended up as a slave. However, the son’s eyes were eventually opened, and he realized he had sinned against both of his fathers, the Father in heaven (Oath) and his father on earth (Sanctions):

“Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” (Luke 15:18-19)

This son did not know his father’s mind either, but in this case, the father only had blessing for his rebellious, thieving son, not cursing.

In the New Covenant, the will of the Father is revealed in the Son by the Spirit. It is an unexpected and undeserved inheritance for slaves and eunuchs, and an eternal legacy for the dispossessed (Mark 10:28-30).

And this abundant and eternal blessing is sourced in a Canaan transfigured by a son “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6), becoming instead a servant of servants that He might become the firstborn from the dead, king of all kings and lord of all lords, the judge of all the earth and the heir of all nations.

This article is a chapter from Dark Sayings: Essays for the Eyes of the Heart.

If you are new to this method of interpretation, please visit the Welcome page for some help to get you up to speed.