Scott Hahn says that Ham (Cham) can be interpreted as having had sex with

[savedsinner]

What difference does it make what he did?

This is just a very small part of salvation history.
The “our father plan” audio series is about 13 hours long, this section on ham took maybe just a few minutes to explain.
I would recommend listening to Our Fathers Plan
or reading the scripture study

real brief here is an excerpt from Scott’s scripture study:

c. The Story of Two Names

The Scripture also depicts Noah, like Adam, falling from grace.

Here, too, we hear echoes of the story of Adam in the story of Noah.

As Adam (whose name in Hebrew literally means “ground”) was given a garden to till, Noah plants a vineyard and becomes “a man of the soil” (see Genesis 2:15; 9:20). And as the forbidden fruit of the garden proves to be Adam’s downfall, so the fruit of Noah’s vine, wine, becomes his. And like Adam’s fall, Noah’s exposes his sin and nakedness (see Genesis 3:6-7; 9:21) and results in a curse (see Genesis 3:14-19; 9:25).

What does it mean that Ham, one of Noah’s three sons, “saw his father’s nakedness”?

In Hebrew, this phrase is actually an idiom, a figure of speech, that describes incest. (Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18. Note: The New American Bible translates the phrase “to have intercourse with” while the Revised Standard Version keeps the more literal translation “uncover the nakedness of” RSV-Leviticus 20:17; 18:6-18).

To uncover the nakedness of your father is to commit incest with your mother.

To put it bluntly - while Noah was drunk, Ham slept with his mother. We can only speculate as to Ham’s motives. It’s reasonable, based on other evidence in the Scripture, to presume that Ham wanted to seize his father’s authority. Sleeping with his mother was the ultimate insult and sign of disrespect (see similar episodes in Genesis 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4; 2 Samuel 16:21-22).

The son born of this incestuous encounter is Canaan. He will grow up to be the father of a nation known and reviled for its abominable practices (see Leviticus 18:6-18; Exodus 23:23-24).

But as Adam bore both Cain, the slayer of his brother, and Seth the righteous one, Noah too has a good seed: his firstborn son Shem, who had tried to “cover” his father’s nakedness (see Genesis 9:23).

Genesis 10 gives us the origins of nations and the genealogy of conflict between the two seeds of Noah. The descendants of Ham become the great national enemies of the people of God - Egypt, Canaan, Philistia, Assyria and Babylon. great patriarch, Abraham, who we’ll read about in the next lesson, is descended from the line of Shem.

From this line, came the nations who tried to build the Tower of Babel in order “to make a name [Hebrew = shem] for themselves” (Genesis 11:1-9). In other words, they were trying to build a kind of “counter-kingdom” to stand against the name of God.

God defeats them - scatters them in a confusion of languages.

Remember what we said above: Shem is the Hebrew word for “name.” And from the line of Shem, God raises up His chosen people.

 

[rcjones]

None. Which is why I have been showing that it is a picture of Christ.

The rainbow isn’t a gay symbol, it is the Light of God descending to the earth as seen through water. As such it is Christ who is the Light and he is the water which represents the Word, … and He’s that too.

It’s because of the same rainbow that Joseph wore that his brothers hated him and put him in the ground.

It came with a promise not to destroy the earth with water (the word) ever again. It is the same lesson as when Elisha removed the borrowed axe from the brook. Since the axe is laid to the root, it represents judgment. The judgment they were making was a borrowed judgment, it wasn’t theirs to make since Christ is the judge.
He removed judgment from the living water. Christ brought grace to the fallen world.

If you choose to “know him as a man” you will not know Him as God.

If you focus on the earthly things, you miss the heavenly things.

 

[savedsinner]

None. Which is why I have been showing that it is a picture of Christ.

The rainbow isn’t a gay symbol, it is the Light of God descending to the earth as seen through water. As such it is Christ who is the Light and he is the water which represents the Word, … and He’s that too.

It’s because of the same rainbow that Joseph wore that his brothers hated him and put him in the ground.

It came with a promise not to destroy the earth with water (the word) ever again. It is the same lesson as when Elisha removed the borrowed axe from the brook. Since the axe is laid to the root, it represents judgment. The judgment they were making was a borrowed judgment, it wasn’t theirs to make since Christ is the judge.
He removed judgment from the living water. Christ brought grace to the fallen world.

If you choose to “know him as a man” you will not know Him as God.

If you focus on the earthly things, you miss the heavenly things.

There are four senses of scripture, and you are alluding to the allegorical sense, which points to Jesus, but what does that have to do with the literal sense, which Dr. Hahn is referring to?
This thread was started upon a literal understanding of the event.

 

[rcjones]

There are four senses of scripture, and you are alluding to the allegorical sense, which points to Jesus, but what does that have to do with the literal sense, which Dr. Hahn is referring to?
This thread was started upon a literal understanding of the event.

Actually, the OP started with the allegorical:

.his mother, that is Noah’s wife. In his audio CD series “Salvation History” Dr. Hahn says that Ham (Cham) “sees his father’s nakedness” (Genesis 9:24) and that is an allegorical way of saying that Ham had sex with his mother.

And it is simply wrong in the allegorical. I have never denied the literal. But if you choose the allegorical, you must focus on Christ.

 

[savedsinner]

Actually, the OP started with the allegorical:

And it is simply wrong in the allegorical. I have never denied the literal. But if you choose the allegorical, you must focus on Christ.

Oh, I see where you are coming from. You are correct, an allegorical meaning would point to Jesus. I think the OP maybe used allegorical , not in the sense of scripture, but as a word which has a different meaning, like “making love” doesn’t mean a factory that makes babies, it means the act of sexual intercourse.

 

[rcjones]

The OP referenced a CD series which I didn’t have access to, so I had to take his word for it. The recent post had a link to the text.

I have been reading that, and have little problem with the way it is treated.

But in the allegorical, the meaning is always higher than the text, not more base. Uncovering the nakedness has to do with denying the image of God. Concerning Noah, and David, etc. it is a picture of the denial of Christ as God. And once we see it as this, others stories are linked, such a ‘sibboleth’…

 

[savedsinner]

The OP referenced a CD series which I didn’t have access to, so I had to take his word for it. The recent post had a link to the text.

I have been reading that, and have little problem with the way it is treated.

But in the allegorical, the meaning is always higher than the text, not more base. Uncovering the nakedness has to do with denying the image of God. Concerning Noah, and David, etc. it is a picture of the denial of Christ as God. And once we see it as this, others stories are linked, such a ‘sibboleth’…

I was just listening to the CD last night. It is a set of 5 CD’s which cover salvation history. The “our fathers plan” link I provided earlier goes a lot more in depth into the subject of salvation history, but it is the same teaching. I prefer the “our fathers plan” audio series, but you need to start from the beginning to understand the covenant, it builds upon itself as you go along.

 

[rcjones]

It presents another riddle:

Adam and Eve - a marriage
Noah - a family
Abraham - a tribe
Moses - a nation
David - a kingdom
Jesus - a universal kingdom

Adam, Noah, David and Jesus had their ‘nakedness exposed’.

We would fully expect word-play if not historical events to indicate the same for Abraham and Moses.

What might they be?
Could it be Miriam’s challenge of Moses for marrying a Cushite?
Sarah being taken by another man and Abraham being honored afterward? The thematic tie will be that the Christ figure is just a man.

 

[savedsinner]

It presents another riddle:

Adam and Eve - a marriage
Noah - a family
Abraham - a tribe
Moses - a nation
David - a kingdom
Jesus - a universal kingdom

Adam, Noah, David and Jesus had their ‘nakedness exposed’.

We would fully expect word-play if not historical events to indicate the same for Abraham and Moses.

What might they be?
Could it be Miriam’s challenge of Moses for marrying a Cushite?
Sarah being taken by another man and Abraham being honored afterward? The thematic tie will be that the Christ figure is just a man.

I think that with Abraham, it would be lying with Hagar, and their son Ishmael who was the first born, but the blessing was not given to him.

As for Moses, I would have to think about it more.

 

[rcjones]

I think that with Abraham, it would be lying with Hagar, and their son Ishmael who was the first born, but the blessing was not given to him.
.

That is certainly a part of the prostitute-virgin bride theme and the inheritance by the second son is a part of the first and second son theme. I’m just not sure how it makes him just a man yet.

But meditating upon it is what gives the delight

 

[rcjones]

Aaron and MIriam ‘exposed their brother’s nakedness’ by looking upon the skin of his wife. A Cushite is black.

And it resulted directly in a challenge to his authority.

 

[rcjones]

Gen 20. For Abraham, he camped between “Holy” and “Wanderer” indicating his high position.

Then when God “made him to be sin…”

13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house,

…his nakedness was exposed when Abimalech “married” her.

2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took <03947> Sarah.

03947 xql laqach law-kakh’
AV-take 747, receive 61, take away 51, fetch 31, bring 25, get 6, take out 6, carry away 5, **married **4, buy 3, misc 26; 965

Double entendre and word-play makes the shadow of Christ.

 

[savedsinner]

Gen 20. For Abraham, he camped between “Holy” and “Wanderer” indicating his high position.

Then when God “made him to be sin…”

13 And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house,

…his nakedness was exposed when Abimalech “married” her.

2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took <03947> Sarah.

03947 xql laqach law-kakh’
AV-take 747, receive 61, take away 51, fetch 31, bring 25, get 6, take out 6, carry away 5, **married **4, buy 3, misc 26; 965

Double entendre and word-play makes the shadow of Christ.

Thx
That is very interesting, Scott Hahn really didn’t cover this aspect so much in his tape series.
Scripture can get very deep and layered with meanings.

 

[NotWorthy]

Now you have made an observation that deeper than you imagine.

Almost every woman in the Bible helps build the prostitute-virgin bride theme in riddle and word-play.

Rebekah was a virtuous woman. But in word play it says the servant “took” her and the word also means “married”. And when she saw Isaac she covered herself, with a subtle insinuation that she was uncovered with the servant. Sao although she is the virgin bride, she is tainted with the hint of prostitution.

Sometimes the theme is produced with a pair of woman, one playing the harlot and the other the bride. So it is with Leah and Rachel. Leah sneaks into the bedchamber of Rachel.

Can you name a woman who doesn’t fit this pattern theme, and can you imagine what the theme means?

Remember, it is word play. If I remember right, Gomer’s son was named “God sows” as a hint of the virgin birth, though she was a harlot.

Good luck

The more I think of this theme, the more it bothers me. I’m worried that the search for these hidden meanings and riddles can potentially steer readers away from the lessons being taught (and this is an example of the veering off course).

For example, just as you can twist and “word-play” all you want to equate each woman with a harlot or prostitute (something that still bothers me immensely), you could probably do the same with any man in the bible, if you take enough liberty and license.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

 

[nablaise]

The more I think of this theme, the more it bothers me. I’m worried that the search for these hidden meanings and riddles can potentially steer readers away from the lessons being taught (and this is an example of the veering off course).

For example, just as you can twist and “word-play” all you want to equate each woman with a harlot or prostitute (something that still bothers me immensely), you could probably do the same with any man in the bible, if you take enough liberty and license.

Am I the only one that thinks this?

I agree with what you are saying. Specially with the harlot/bride “word-play”. I really think this lead into some dangereous twisting in order to fit the pattern we want.

I don’t think sacred writter were interested in word playing or hiding meanings intentionnally for the sake of riddles, etc… or that God would make sure it happens… For example the case of ‘uncovering nakedness’ I think it was more about being polite and reverant in writting sacred scripture than just intentionally hiding things. They are many cases where things are presented in special wording just for politeness sake.

I don’t see why and how all those different writters writting about different women would all participate in a game of hiding the images of harlot/bride behind every case, and why God would ‘make sure’ it applies to every woman.

I believe wherever it happened it was against God’s wishes. Sin is always agains God’s wishes. But because of his mercy, he forgive and look at it in a new perspective. For example. The case of Lea and Rachel, we know that God is for one woman. Which means that he was not pleased with four women who ended up being mothers of the twelve patriarchs. Yet because of his mercy, he made a covenant with them.

An other example is the case of Bathsheba. God was surely not pleased with David stilling someon’es wife and killing her husband. Yet after repentance, the same woman is the mother of Solomon and the mother of Jesus high in his genealogy.
They are many more example. I don’t think God makes sure some sins happens so that history fit a certain pattern…

God bless

 

[marymol]

Php 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Reading through some of the posts and having been somewhat bothered by the interpretation of of the scholarly Mr.Hahn on this event, guess there is a simpler explanation for those who so desire it and may be even more appicable to our times !

Today , as we celebrate Father’s Day, we can also thank our Lord for St.Simeon The Canaanite who was chosen and appointed with the full apostolic power and thus a Father to us all too …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_the_Canaanite

St.Simeon , seems stayed in the ‘shadows’ , atleast as far as biblical recognition yet may have been a zealous worker for The Kingdom !

As to Canaan’s father , Ham, it is possible that he had nurtured an arrogant attitude with its prideful ambition to be the ruler , by denying his father’s authority and may have even done so with the hope of handing it over to his own son ; after all he realised that the whole world was at stake !

Mr.Hahn , while is rightly well respected for his insight and grasp of biblical theology , is it possible that with his protestant background ( with its long standing rebellion against the Father authority through the Pope ) and his own problems with his father that he alludes to , to have left a small blind spot that sort of does not let him see the seriousnes of the attitude of rebellion ( which is like witchcraft!) in Ham’s heart …and the best remedy for such was given to Noah by the Spirit , to be administered to all those who could be affected !

In our own times the parallels are clear !

May be best seen in the encyclical Humane Vitae and Pope Paul V1 ( ironically , the same issue that had started the converiosn of Mr.Hahn !)

Those theologians who looked for any weakness of the science and such behind the teaching authority of the Holy Father and of The Church used scorn and rebellion , to turn their children / followers againt it , for all its consequence , such as the slavery to passions that it brings on and also deny fatherhood to many !

May The Spirit open our eyes and hearts to give glory and gratitude to the gift of fatherhood !

 

[Ron_Conte]

In any language, many words have more than one possible meaning. But that is said apart from any context at all. In context, a word with many possible meanings may have only one meaning.

It is not a legitimate technique of interpretation to attempt to apply every possible alternate meaning and then read into the text something that the sacred writers, and the Holy Spirit, never intended.

This technique is particularly harmful when it is used to assert that some Biblical figure sinned seriously, even though the proper understanding of the word in context says no such thing.

 

[rcjones]

God explicitly says He speaks in riddles:

Nu 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches <02420>; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? 
Ps 49:4 I will incline mine ear to a parable: I will open my dark saying <02420> upon the harp. 
Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings <02420> of old: 
Pr 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings <02420>. 
Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; 
Da 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences <02420>, shall stand up. 
Pr 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

For example, just as you can twist and “word-play” all you want to equate each woman with a harlot or prostitute (something that still bothers me immensely), you could probably do the same with any man in the bible, if you take enough liberty and license.

I appreciate that it may seem foreign, but the tools have been used from the time of the apostles.

What you have not had an opportunity to do yet, is evaluate the rules that go with the tools that severely limit “liberty and license”.
The images I share are not invention, but are the result of correlation.

Rule 1: Since “every word shall be established by two or three witnesses” every shadow must have supporting scriptures. This means that an image cannot just come out of the air.

Rule 2: Since God’s word is established and does not change, a shadow must be the same everywhere it appears. This rule makes human invention impossible. This says that if a donkey represents a prophet in one story, it represents a prophet in every story. Imagine the gibberish produced if this were applied to any other writing.

Rule 3: Since God thought every jot and tittle was important enough to preserve, we do not fully understand scripture until we understand why each jot and tittle was important to God. This keeps us intellectually honest and humble, and willing to learn from the scriptures.

Rule 4: Samson says you cannot know a riddle until you “plow with the heifer”. One plows the earth (literal) with the sacrifice (Christ). Every shadow is designed to show Christ, but only after he has been revealed at the cross. There is insufficient information in the Old Testament alone to see shadows of Christ. The shadows do not reveal Christ, Christ reveals the shadows. In simple terms, if the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a shadow of Christ.

The term used for the phenomenon is sensus plenior. It is a meaning that God put there that even the human author was unaware of. It is not allegory, since allegory has no rules. The meaning is not invented, it is attached to the words themselves and discerned by correlation. Because of this, the meaning can be validated by anyone.

Some have made the mistake of thinking that the word play imparts moral guilt upon the subjects. It does not. The prostitute bride theme does not literally accuse the women of being prostitutes, and it is a gross error to imply that it does.

It is not a legitimate technique of interpretation to attempt to apply every possible alternate meaning and then read into the text something that the sacred writers, and the Holy Spirit, never intended.

Isn’t it presumptuous to assume that the Holy Spirit would not intend to show Christ in the scriptures? And when a child hears the word “bear”, since he is not accustomed to throwing out all the other meanings based on context, must consider each meaning to see if it applies. He must also consider the meanings of the word ‘bare’ since he doesn’t know they are spelled differently. In fact, 3rd grade humor is chocked full of such mixed meanings.

Now isn’t it interesting that the proposed second meanings are not just plausible in the context of the scriptures, but also theologically significant? I would like to see any naysayer try to reproduce the phenomenon in any other writing.

Thanks for the feedback.

Prov 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

[NotWorthy]

God explicitly says He speaks in riddles:

Yes, God speaks in riddles. God also speaks in prophecy, in Apocalyptic language, and in very clear terms. God is not limited to speaking in riddles.

I appreciate that it may seem foreign, but the tools have been used from the time of the apostles.

What you have not had an opportunity to do yet, is evaluate the rules that go with the tools that severely limit “liberty and license”.
The images I share are not invention, but are the result of correlation.

snip.

Rule 2: Since God’s word is established and does not change, a shadow must be the same everywhere it appears. This rule makes human invention impossible. This says that if a donkey represents a prophet in one story, it represents a prophet in every story. Imagine the gibberish produced if this were applied to any other writing.

No, this is simply not true. I’ll have to remember my sources on this, but there are cases where images mean completely different things. A rose is not always a rose is not always a rose. I’ll have to get back with you on the details.

Rule 3: Since God thought every jot and tittle was important enough to preserve, we do not fully understand scripture until we understand why each jot and tittle was important to God. This keeps us intellectually honest and humble, and willing to learn from the scriptures.

I disagree, yet again.

For instance, there’s really not much to glean from, When you come, bring the cloak I left with Carpus in Troas, the papyrus rolls, and especially the parchments. My soul does not get filled with the Holy Spirit when I read this Scripture passage.

Rule 4: Samson says you cannot know a riddle until you “plow with the heifer”. One plows the earth (literal) with the sacrifice (Christ). Every shadow is designed to show Christ, but only after he has been revealed at the cross. There is insufficient information in the Old Testament alone to see shadows of Christ. The shadows do not reveal Christ, Christ reveals the shadows. In simple terms, if the shadow doesn’t look like Christ, it isn’t a shadow of Christ.

The term used for the phenomenon is sensus plenior. It is a meaning that God put there that even the human author was unaware of. It is not allegory, since allegory has no rules. The meaning is not invented, it is attached to the words themselves and discerned by correlation. Because of this, the meaning can be validated by anyone.

Most of this is correct, but I disagree with the last sentence. People take many shadows of the Old Testament and mis-apply them to the truths of the New Testament. This often comes from having pre-conceived beliefs and basing the interpretation on those beliefs.

Some have made the mistake of thinking that the word play imparts moral guilt upon the subjects. It does not. The prostitute bride theme does not literally accuse the women of being prostitutes, and it is a gross error to imply that it does.

Isn’t it presumptuous to assume that the Holy Spirit would not intend to show Christ in the scriptures? And when a child hears the word “bear”, since he is not accustomed to throwing out all the other meanings based on context, must consider each meaning to see if it applies. He must also consider the meanings of the word ‘bare’ since he doesn’t know they are spelled differently. In fact, 3rd grade humor is chocked full of such mixed meanings.

Now isn’t it interesting that the proposed second meanings are not just plausible in the context of the scriptures, but also theologically significant? I would like to see any naysayer try to reproduce the phenomenon in any other writing.

Thanks for the feedback.

Prov 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I’m not disagreeing with this theory entirely, I just think it gets the typical reader bogged down in chasing rabbits down false holes. In other words, sometimes a shadow is simply a shadow.

 

[NotWorthy]

In regards to the claim that a donkey is always a donkey, we have a rock. What is the rock? Sometimes its Abraham, sometimes its Jesus, and sometimes its Peter.