My Black Biblical Heritage. Chukwuemeka Livingstone

three sons identified as Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These were joint heirs with Noah who survived the deluge as a result of the curse in Genesis 3:17b which witnessed a progressive act of negativity in the heart of man (Adam’s descendant) on earth. So in effect, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were blessed by God in the knowledge and presence of Noah.

      Notice that in Genesis 9:18b, it particularly said, “And Ham is the father of Canaan.” There is a purpose as to why this particular scripture was added immediately after the identification of Noah’s three sons in the Bible. Ham is the father of the black race (Gen. 10:6). God had known that Noah’s pronouncement against Canaan (Ham’s son) in the Bible would be greatly misunderstood by some Bible scholars. Noah himself understood the pronouncements of the blessings of God upon Ham and his son and knew that you cannot curse the man that God has blessed (see Num. 22:12 and 23:8, 19–20).

      Noah knew according to Genesis 12:3: “I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee.”

      When Ham discovered his father’s nakedness, Noah himself knew that the circumstances were different and not grievous enough to bring a curse upon Ham. The one that would have brought a curse on Ham directly according to God’s Word is relative.

      “The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover. It is thy father’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:8).

      In the event of one committing such an error, a curse and a consequence follows as it is written: “Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife because he uncovered his father’s skirt, and all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut. 27:20).

      Incidentally, the only two people whom the Bible specifically identified in the Old Testament times as those cursed for such related offenses were all from the Shemitic race. One was from the tribe of Reuben (with Reuben being the culprit himself) while the other came from the tribe of Judah (Absalom), the son of David. Rightly applied, the curse came upon them but in isolation. By this, I mean, that the curse did not go beyond the offender. Even if it did, it did not hinder their being partakers in sharing the inheritance promised them by God. Even though the kingship did not go to Reuben as the supposed owner, his tribe nevertheless partook of the inheritance of God, i.e., the Promised Land. Absalom who committed such crime paid for it himself. The scepter was not removed from Judah by reason of the curse on Absalom because according to Scripture, God’s purpose by election must stand, yet “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Ezek.18:4c).

      Every man must answer for himself, his sin against God. Also, in the New Testament times, there was a reported case of one uncovering his father’s nakedness in 1 Corinthians 5:1. This time, it was among the saints in the church. Even though he was censored by the church with Apostle Paul’s backing (of course, biblically speaking), it did not mean he was not reaccepted into the body of Christ as a joint heir when he repented after a godly sort. Thus, showing that God wants all men saved (Rom. 11:32).

      However, suffice this argument thus far, lest we digress. The bone of contention is not to justify sinners but to clarify the meaning (biblically), the uncovering or discovering of one’s father’s nakedness.

      To uncover here (based on this bible passage) is a willful sin of moral instability while to discover or see could be an accidental occurrence or an event unprepared. This was not Ham’s sin against Noah. As a matter of fact, the discovery of Noah’s skirt was the mistake of Noah who got drunk and could not hold fast to his integrity. The Bible says, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby, is not wise. Prov, 20:1.

      Wise men in the Bible are never associated with taking strong drink (see Prov. 31:4–5). Even where a man had been known to be wise, if he takes strong drink and is deceived thereby, his action is not considered as being wise. Strong drink and wine can make one to err and take away the heart (Isa. 28:7, Hosea 4:11). Noah’s wisdom testified of him by God as being just, perfect, and upright found it’s being ridiculed by strong drink. By being drunk, his act of exposing his nakedness showed foolishness on his part. This same problem became the lot of Lot. By being drunk, Lot unknowingly slept with his daughters (Gen. 19:31–38 and therefore erred according to Isa. 28:7a), but they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way, not accounting that incest is a deviant attitude.

      I want to limit the drunkenness by strong drink and wine to those that have drinking problem. I know there are areas of drunkenness whereby one may have a morbid desire to sin tantamount to being drunk with iniquity, but specifically in this case, reference is made to strong drink or wine. So Noah drank wine and was drunken and therefore was uncovered within his tent. When Ham came in, he saw his father’s nakedness (which was not his fault). The only fault, which I suppose, was traced to him is that he (Ham) did not cover Noah up but went and told his two brethren instead. Noah’s anger toward Ham is that of a secret being made open because of indiscretion. Indiscretion in the sense that Ham should have secretly covered him and kept quiet without letting his brethren know. But is the fault more with the man (Noah) who displeased God than with Ham that displeased man? Noah’s pride was hurt when he knew what Ham had done (probably by the report of his two brethren which I consider as gossip or reporting a case also without discretion); this incurred Noah’s wrath. I don’t rule out that Ham may have mocked and his brethren may have gossiped and their father in outrage, reacted because he felt ridiculed. In consequence, he looked at Ham to address him, but remembering that Ham had been blessed by God which he (Noah) could not reverse, Canaan came into the picture. Noah cursed Canaan instead. Now we know that if God has blessed a man, it affects his third and fourth generation (2 Kings 10:30) as this also applies to his curse (Exod. 20:5). But the blessing will last as long as the chain of obedience and faithfulness to the Word of God continues.

      Ham by circumstances became a victim of disobedience and by being indiscreet, paved way for his brethren covering their father’s nakedness to inherit added blessing. God allows you to bless the man that he has blessed, and by doing so, he blesses you, but don’t you curse him. That would be contrary to God. In the same vein, where one is cursed by God, it goes down to his descendant even unto the third to fourth generation as long as they continually remain rebellious. But where there is repentance and a forsaking of the evil ways of their fathers, God changes the curse to blessing based on a new covenant of peace (Exod. 20:6), sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ (see Ezek. 18:1–4, 14–20, Eph. 2:12–20, 1 Cor. 11:25). Ham’s circumstantial shortcomings (I say circumstantial because he saw his father’s nakedness possibly by walking into the tent unannounced or by knocking of which there was no answer, which also may have heightened his curiosity to find out what’s happening.) brought about a curse on Canaan (Ham’s fourth son by biblical placement), but the curse on Canaan was not unto his generation. It was an isolated incident. This is in the sense that Canaan’s descendants and generation were blessed, progressive (and may have worshiped God in righteousness) who occupied the Promise Land before the handover to Israel. In fact, from Canaan’s territory arose a very respected and mysterious personality in the Bible whom even God himself recognized and separated for divine service in the person of Melchizedek.