During Pride Month this past June, I wrote 3 blogs that challenge the use of 6 of the 7 “Clobber passages.” By clobber, I mean the term that has developed to describe 7 biblical passages that have been used to clobber LGBTQ+ people over the head to make them feel bad about being LGBTQ+. Of all of the 7 passages, this is the best example of twisting a text into something it absolutely is not. At least with the others, a plausible reason supports exploring them as prohibitions against same-gender sex. I say plausible, but still not accurate.
Here are the links below to the earlier blogs.
Old Testament
Genesis 19 — The story of bad ancient hospitality in Sodom and Gomorrah, including a canonical comparison of Genesis 18 — Abraham and Sarah’s excellent hospitality to the 3 angels unaware. Another canonical comparison comes from bad ancient hospitality in Gibeah from Judges 19 and the resulting gang rape of a concubine and her subsequent murder.
Leviticus 18 & 20 — This compares 2 verses that define male-to-male sex as an “abomination.” This blog includes an exploration of the historical and cultural contexts for the Israelites and the importance of Israelites refraining from Canaanite cultic practices.
New Testament
Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 — These are St. Paul’s “vice lists” with a “kitchen sink approach.” Paul lists sins like murder with gossiping without ranking them in higher and lower degrees of seriousness, for example. I demonstrate how Paul did not understand our contemporary phrase, “homosexuality” from our 21st-century context. Inserting our word into writing that is 2000 years old makes for bad biblical scholarship and reveals the pretextual agenda of morphing a writing into something it simply is not to empower one’s agenda.
Such morphing occurs in our focal text appearing below. The flood is over and now God blesses Noah with land, and Noah grows fine grapes and makes wine.
20 Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; 21 and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:20-25, RSV, emphasis mine).
Let’s start by saying that biblical experts still don’t know for sure what this text tries to communicate. Noah makes two blunders at the start of this narrative. He gets so drunk he passes out. He’s also naked in his tent with his bits and pieces on display!
Talking Point Tidbit #1. Many prohibitions against seeing one’s parents naked appear in Leviticus. The phrase “seeing the nakedness of” is sometimes translated as “having sex with” another. Another term that has a euphemistic meaning is “to know,” also translated as “to have sex.” Scholars refer to Leviticus as the “P” source, or Priestly source, a codification of ritual, dietary, and sacramental practices. However, regarding our focal passage, we need to understand that P authors did not write this text simultaneously as it happened. The P source dates to the sixth century BCE, or hundreds of years later. Keep this in mind. Like the other Leviticus passages I’ve discussed in the previous blog linked above, our text here shows us a motivation of the P authors — to distinguish Israel from the “ungodly” Canaanites. The curse of Canaan, the land and the people, arises from this text.
So, Noah is lying there drunk and naked like he’d been to a frat party, as we’d say. Ham “uncovers the nakedness” of his father, a big no-no for Israelites. Then he tells his brothers, Shem and Japheth, that he “saw the nakedness” of his father. We do not know for sure if this merely means that Ham saw his father naked. From a plain reading of the text, we can deduce that Ham indeed saw his father in the nude without adding in the implied meaning of sex or rape.
But some scholars have interpreted this to mean that Ham raped his unconscious father. Why would he do this? Perhaps to assert authority, power, and dominion over Noah by shaming him through an act of penetration. If Ham announced he raped his father, we learn nothing of the reaction of Noah’s other 2 sons. I could envision Shem and Japheth drawing swords on their brother for doing that, either for raping their father or their mother. I view this proposed scenario of rape as highly unlikely.
And of course, this would be a story about the rape of an unconscious man who cannot give consent. We cannot equate this account with a story about the committed, consensual, loving, male-to-male sex by a couple like we understand today.
Talking Point Tidbit #2. There is confusion as to whether Ham is the middle son or the third son. In Gen. 6:9, Ham is listed as the middle son. But in our text, Noah refers to Ham as his youngest son. This discrepancy confuses what the P authors are trying to do with the text in failing to give a consistent presentation of the facts from one chapter to the next.
Consider the parallel use of the word “see.” Ham “sees/views” his father just as his brothers don’t “see/view” their father. We must read the grammar equilaterally and without inserting the euphemism of sex/rape. I say this because in the event it was sex/rape, it makes sense that the P authors would want to distinguish clearly the scandalous behavior of Ham and the righteous behavior of his brothers. The P authors would want to underscore that Ham did rape his father and that the brothers did not rape their father. To do that, we can rightly expect that they would choose distinctive verbs of precision to help the reader understand very different kinds of conduct, like sexual assault versus care, respect, and compassion.
Instead, the brothers acted righteously and with respect. Shem and Japheth took a cloth, walked backward into their dad’s tent, and while looking away, covered him up. They didn’t “see” their father naked; they did the right thing under the circumstances. The brothers could not make Noah “un-drunk,” but they did rectify the other problem of his nakedness.
Talking Point Tidbit #3. This story starts at verse Gen. 9:20. However, in Gen. 9:1 , we learn that God blesses Noah and his sons. Israelites considered it one of God’s greatest blessings to live long enough to see their 3rd generation, their grandchildren. So how then can Noah “reverse” or negate this blessing by God of his sons and presumptively the sons’ offspring?
Why does Noah curse Canaan for Ham’s action? Canaan is Ham’s son, and therefore Canaan is Noah’s grandson. Noah has rejected the 3rd generation blessing that he has in Canaan. The P authors seem to have taken the opportunity from the future to further insult the Canaanites of the distant past.
We don’t learn about the brothers’ reaction to the curse either. They likely thought it was unfair and wrong to negate a blessing from God. Rather than the true actor, Ham, Canaan gets the curse instead. As far as we know, Canaan was not even present during this event. What a rip-off for Canaan!
We should not even consider this text one of the clobber passages because scholars will likely never have certainty about its meaning. Even if biblical experts are correct that Ham raped his father, this text first and foremost condemns rape and the humiliation of one’s father. The passage does not and cannot get twisted into a condemnation of loving, consensual gay male relationships in today’s context. Such an interpretation stretches the text to the point of absurdity.
Blessings on your journey as a faith-based advocate for social justice.
Once again, a special thanks to Astrid Beck, Ph.D. Astrid’s excellent reputation for biblical scholarship is known far and wide. She very kindly agreed to consult with me on this and the 3 previous clobber blogs. We are both dedicated to offering the most accurate biblical study, and I’m grateful for her help even as she recovers from surgery. Thank you, Astrid! You’re a gentlewoman, scholar, and all-around good egg!
