Yesterday, I watched a video on YouTube put up by Rachel Stephens titled "Try not to VOMIT when you learn Ham's sin! | Genesis 9:18-28." In this video, she claims that the sin of Noah's son Ham was that he had sex with his own mother. Let us observe the text, shall we:
"Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside." Genesis 9:22
Apparently the plain English text of this verse is not good enough for Rachel Stephens. She feels the need to impose on the text, via eisegesis, a perverse interpretation based on collapsing context. Collapsing context is the act of taking two verses that share a similar
word or words (regardless of context) and trying to unite them in order to teach some doctrine. How does she arrive at her completely and utterly false interpretative nonsense?
"You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness." Leviticus 18:7-8
"...Because your lewdness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered through your harlotries with your lovers and with all your detestable idols..." Ezekiel 16:36
"She uncovered her harlotries and uncovered her nakedness; then I became disgusted with her, as I had become disgusted with her sister." Ezekiel 23:18
Because the phrase "uncover the nakedness" in these passages refers to sexual intercourse, Rachel assumes that the same is true of the passage in Genesis. Because of what the Leviticus passage says, she assumes that the phrase "saw the nakedness of his father" actually refers to his mother, Noah's wife. So the description on her video reads, "SO GROSS! Noah drank too much before he went to 'be fruitful and multiply' with his wife – unfortunately, HIS OWN SON, Ham, got to her first."
Now, if the phrase "saw the nakedness of his father" actually meant sexual intercourse here, it would mean that Ham had sex with his father—not his mother. However, sexual intercourse is not in view here. The passage opens by saying:
"He [Noah] drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent." Genesis 9:21
Who is undoubtedly described as being naked here? Noah. Noah's wife is not mentioned whatsoever in this passage, unless you force collapsing context upon the text, which is the act of eisegesis. How does this section end?
"When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him." Genesis 9:24
Now, one could argue that something done to the wife could be said to be "done to him," but let us take the text at face value for what it says. It says that Noah uncovered himself, that Ham saw his nakedness, told his brothers, and the brothers covered up his nakedness without seeing it. That is it. You have to perform some pretty grand exegetical gymnastics in order to arrive at the idea that Ham had sex with his own mother, or even his own father.
Concerning the passage on incest in Leviticus 18:6-18, Keil and Delitzsch, considered to be the greatest of the Hebrew scholars, acknowledge that the phrase "uncover the nakedness" in this passage means to have sexual intercourse. However, in our Genesis passage, no such connection is made. The Hebrew text and grammar do not support such a sick, twisted, and perverse interpretation. Keil and Delitzsch comment:
"In ignorance of the fiery nature of wine, Noah drank and was drunken, and uncovered himself in his tent (v. 21). Although excuse may be made for this drunkenness, the words of Luther are still true: "Qui excusant patriarcham, colentes hanc consolationem, quam Spiritus S. ecclesiss necessariam judicavit, abjuciunt, quod scilicen etiam summi sancti aliquando labuntur." This trifling fall served to display the hearts of his sons. Ham saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Not content with finding pleasure himself in his father's shame, "nunquam enim vino victum patrem filius resisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet," he just proclaimed his disgraceful pleasure to his brethren, and thus exhibited his shameless sensuality."
Even John Calvin writes:
"We know that parents, next to God, are most deeply to be reverenced; and if there were neither books nor sermons, nature itself constantly inculcates this lesson upon us. It is received by common consent, that piety towards parents is the mother of all virtues. This Ham, therefore, must have been of a wicked, perverse, and crooked disposition; since he not only took pleasure in his father's shame, but wished to expose him to his brethren."
No commentator or Hebrew scholar has ever postulated that this passage teaches that Ham had sex with his mother, or even his father. No such connection has ever been made. It takes a perverse mind who cannot read Scripture for what it says to come up with such a wild speculative fantasy of complete and utter nonsense. Rachel Stephens is a false teacher, and she needs to be avoided.