Click HERE to return to main site

The Biblical Reason Why Caanan Inherited the Curse Instead of Ham

by David Douglas

     The proof is in the pudding so to speak, so let us go and eat of some of that delightful pudding. Lev. 20:11, “And a man who lies with his father’s wife, who has uncovered the nakedness of his father, both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.” Once more using the same analogy of uncovering one’s nakedness, we read at Lev. 18:13-16, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister; for she is your mother’s relative. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother; you shall not draw near to his wife; she is your aunt. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness.” For further uncovering proofs please read Lev. 20:18, 19, & 20.

     Now let’s address the saw word that is found in Gen. 9:22, that I had referred to earlier. The Hebrew word here is Strong’s #7200, ra’ah. Strong’s states, “to see, look, view; to realize, know, consider;” I have little doubt that the better translation here would be realized, or knew his father’s nakedness. We read at Lev. 20:17, “And if a man takes his sister, the daughter of his father or daughter of his mother, and he has seen her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a shame; and they shall be cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.” These two words seen & sees found in this verse are from the same Hebrew word ra’ah, Strong’s #7200. I believe this verse leaves little wiggle room for what the Scripture is telling us here about the meaning of these two words, for the verse begins by stating, “And if a man takes his sister”. This is not merely a visual sin of lust, such as pornography but one of physical incest. It is such an abomination that the Torah states at Lev. 20:11, “…both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Also the Hebrew word for uncovered is gala, Strong’s #1540, “to tell, uncover, reveal; depart, leave, be exiled, banished; to be opened, unseal; be made known; to be revealed, be exposed; to reveal, expose (nakedness) = sexual relations; ….”.

      So then why was Ham and Noah’s wife not put to death, and why did Canaan receive the curse instead of Ham for Ham’s debauchery. The answer to why Ham could not be put to death or even cursed is found also in Gen. 9:1 “And God blessed Noah and his sons. And he said to them, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Reading from Gen 9:8-9, “And God spoke to Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, Behold, I, even I, am establishing My covenant with you, and with your seed after you,”. There is no way Noah can curse what Yah had blessed. God wanted all present to help replenish the earth.

      To answer the question then did Noah place a curse upon Canaan? Reiterating, I do not believe Noah can curse what Yah had blessed, unless Noah is guilty of some further sin. It is entirely possible that Canaan did not receive the same blessings and covenants of the other family members. Remember the blessing, and the covenant, was made between Yah and Noah and his sons, “and with your seed after you,”. Canaan was the fruit of a terrible sin and would not receive anyone’s blessing. I believe there is more here in this Biblical account than first may meet the eye. We also know from Ex. 20:5 that God can place the sins of the father unto the children, Ex. 20:5, “you shall not bow down to them, and you shall not serve them; for I am YHVH your God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation, to those who hate me;”

     Looking at the Biblical account, Gen. 9:18-19, “And the sons of Noah that went out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. And Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah, and the whole earth was overspread with them.” If one is not careful in the reading of this verse, one might think Canaan existed when Noah and his sons departed the ark. The Scripture here seems quite clear though that it was Noah and his three sons who departed the ark. Also why was Canaan singled out here, did not Ham have three other sons, Cush, Mizraim and Put? There has got to be something very powerful God is trying to inform us about Canaan.

      We next read Gen. 9:20, “And Noah, a man of the ground, began and planted a vineyard. And he drank from the wine, and was drunk.” Now this is where one needs to read between the lines because if you just take this verse as it is written, you might assume only Noah had been drinking and become drunk. Also it reads as if Noah upon departing the ark next planted a vineyard and got drunk. I am sure he had more pressing issues at hand upon leaving the ark and that he would have seen to these things first. Which leaves us with an indeterminate amount of time until the vineyard is consumm-ated. My assertion is that the reason why the Bible tells us only Noah was drunk, is be-cause he is the one with authority. He, being the patriarch in the position of ruler or king and high priest. It is also my assertion that probably all of Noah’s sons and perhaps their wives had been drinking, a celebration of sorts. Noah drank too much and passed out, leaving the other drunken ones to their own devices. This is where the incestuous en-counter between Ham and his father’s wife took place.

     Next I would humbly submit to you that Canaan was the offspring of that incestuous relationship. Canaan would be unwanted and unloved by all parties present. Psycholo- gists today know that a person who is raised up in such a fashion is a prime candidate for much aberrant behavior. You see this in many murderers, homosexuals, rapists, and child molesters. Was not the descendents of Canaan, the Canaanite peoples just such an aberr-ant people. Did they not forsake the God of Noah for strange gods? Did they not have so little love for their own children, so that they would pass many through the fire, as a sac-rifice unto Molech, (Lev. 20:2-4, 1 King 11:7, 2 King 16:3, 17:17, & 23:35)? It is a monumental curse to place upon any child to bring them into this world unwanted and unloved by their parents. This places this person in a position of hatred and rebellion against those who brought them into this world, and that most assuredly includes the creator of all things. Perhaps this will bring into greater clarity why God was so harsh in dealing with the descendents of Canaan when the Israelite tribes were given the land of Canaan, as their own possession, upon leaving Egypt and then the wilderness.

     Noah is by no means blameless here for God desires no one to become so drunk that one cannot maintain righteousness in their own household. It is quite obvious that Noah was in no way able to know what had taken place, but was informed some time after the fact. Gen. 9:24-25, And Noah awoke from his wine. And he came to know what his younger son had done to him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan. He shall be a slave of slaves to his brothers.” So who was Canaan to be a slave of slaves to? His brothers, Cush, Mizraim, and Put. These three brothers became dynastic civilizations around the land of Canaan. Through Cush came Nimrod and Babylon, Gen. 10:6-10. Through Mizraim came the Egyptians, Gen. 10:14. Through Put came the mercenary men of what many believe is today Libya, (Ezek. 26:10, 30:5, 38:5, Nah. 3:9, & Jer. 46:9). These nation peoples created from Ham, became slaves to much sin and aberrant behaviour in themselves. We read in John 8:34, “Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Everyone practicing sin is a slave of sin.”

     It is also known, because of the Tel el-Amarna tablets, that at one time Canaan had become a province of Egypt. These tablets were discovered in 1887 A. D. and describe much of what was taking place in and around Egypt some 35 centuries ago. Many of the tablets are actual letters written to the Pharoahs Akhnaton, Amenhotep & Akhenaten, from the neighboring countries dignitaries. One passage written by the king of Babylon to the Pharoah, reads, “Canaan is thy land and its kings are thy servants” el- Amarna 8,25.It takes little imagination to see the high-minded Egyptians and Babylonians routinely look-ing down their noses at the ill begotten Canaanites. The Israelite people, who once were slaves of the Egyptians, sometimes used Canaanites as slaves of their own, (Joshua chapter 9), thusly, further fulfilling the curse, or prophecy, that Canaan would be slaves of slaves.

     We should also recall that the Moabite and Ammonite peoples, who lived in the land of Canaan alongside the Canaanites, were descendants of an incestuous affair between Lot and his two daughters, (Gen. 19:36-38). These peoples who co-mingled with the Canaan-ite peoples thusly became one and the same for all intent purposes. How fitting it would be that all these descendants of incestuous relationships would come to live in close prox-imity and worship the same gods, and goddesses, such as Chemosh, Milcom, Molech, Ashtoreth, Asherah, Anath and others. We find in Scripture how these peoples were in-volved in every type of aberrant behaviour imaginable. The Israelites are told, as they are about to enter into the land, at Deut. 18:9-14, “thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.” The Scriptures go on here to list some of these sins.

      There is another way to look at Noah’s statement found at Gen. 9:24-25, where it appears as if he is placing a curse upon Canaan. That is, the statement is one with prophetic connotations rather than one of damning or condemnation. The word “cursed”, found in this passage may be used in the form of an adjective instead of a noun. The word “cursed”, (pronounced cur-sid), would then take on a sense of damnable, detestable, or abominable meaning. In light of this we can see that Noah perhaps is not wishing some harm or evil upon Canaan, like some voodoo shaman, but is giving us some insight into the abomination that Canaan was, ill begotten and where this would lead to.

      I hope this paper helps bring into greater focus the matter of Canaan receiving the curse over Ham. I would be the first one to admit that much of what is written here is supposition or commentary on the matter of Canaan. When it comes to such matters, one should not become overly eager to accept or dismiss such commentary. I strongly feel as the Spirit of Yah has led me to these conclusions. Perhaps I am mistaken and there is a better explanation of this Biblical account. I have yet to come across one. It would seem although, that there is one thing that becomes abundantly clear, in the passage found at Gen. 9:18, “…And Ham is the father of Canaan.” And that is, that there is something very selective and profound about Canaan. This seemingly innocuous statement is anything but that. Humbly, in Yeshua Ha Mashiach, David Douglas