Jonathan sent me a question the other day concenring why Noah cursed Canaan for Ham's sin. Rather than trying to explain this in my own words, I am copying a good resource that does a much better job of explaining the thought and culture behind these events. It's lengthy, but worth the read. Feel free to comment any thoughts you might have.  " The curse of Canaan (9:18–29) This passage has several interpretive problems that have always plagued Bible scholars. It is important to remember the purpose of the book, for this passage has V 1, p 41 direct reference to the nature and destiny of the Canaanites, Israel’s antagonists. 9:18–23. Those who came out of the ark are identified, with the special note that Ham was the father of Canaan. From Noah’s three sons descended all the world’s people. The descendants of Shem were the Shemites from whom Abraham descended (cf. 10:21–31; 11:10–26). Noah, “the man of the earth” (as the rabbis translated the words a man of the soil), began to plant a vineyard. Though wine is said to cheer the heart (Jud. 9:13; Ps. 104:15) and alleviate the pain of the curse (Prov. 31:6), it is also clear that it has disturbing effects. Here Noah lay drunk and naked in his tent. Intoxication and sexual looseness are hallmarks of pagans, and both are traced back to this event in Noah’s life. Man had not changed at all; with the opportunity to start a “new creation,” Noah acted like a pagan (cf. Gen. 6:5; 8:21). The basic question concerns what Ham, Noah’s youngest son, did (9:22, 24) and why Noah cursed Ham’s “son” Canaan (vv. 25–27). Many fanciful ideas have been proposed. The rabbis said Ham castrated Noah, thus explaining why Noah had no other sons. Others claim that Ham slept with his mother, thus uncovering his father’s nakedness, and that Canaan was the offspring of that union. Others have said that Ham was involved in a homosexual attack on his father. But the Hebrew expression here means what it says: Ham … saw his father’s nakedness (v. 22). He was not involved with Noah sexually, for in that case the Hebrew would be translated “he uncovered (causative form of gālâh) his father’s nakedness.” Instead Noah had already uncovered himself (wayyiṯgal, reflexive form, v. 21), and Ham saw him that way. To the ancients, however, even seeing one’s father naked was a breach of family ethic. The sanctity of the family was destroyed and the strength of the father was made a mockery. Ham apparently stumbled on this accidentally, but went out and exultingly told his two brothers, as if he had triumphed over his father. So what seems to be a trivial incident turned out to be a major event. Noah’s oracle (vv. 25–27) showed that the natures of his three sons would be perpetuated in their descendants. In all but one of the verses in Leviticus 18:6–19, Moses used the causative form of the verb gālâh to refer to the Canaanites’ (Ham’s descendants) “uncovering” another’s nakedness (rendered in the niv, “have sexual relations”). This euphemism reports the actual licentious and repulsively immoral behavior of the descendants of Ham (cf. Lev. 18:3). Ham’s disposition toward moral abandon thus bore fruit in the immoral acts of his descendants, the Canaanites. 9:24–29. Because of this incident Noah prophesied about his sons’ descendants. He began with the direct words, Cursed be Canaan! However, Noah was not punishing Ham’s son for something Ham did. Instead, Noah’s words referred to the nation of Canaanites that would come from Ham through Canaan. Ham’s act of hubris could not be left without repercussions. A humiliation in like measure was needed, according to the principle of retributive justice. Ham had made an irreparable breach in his father’s family; thus a curse would be put on his son’s family. It has been suggested that Ham may have attempted to seize leadership over his brothers for the sake of his own line. This would be similar to other ancient traditions about a son replacing his father. But if he did his attempt failed, and his line through Canaan was placed not in leadership over other clansmen, but under them (v. 25). Noah’s oracle predicted that the Canaanites would be in servitude to the Shemites and Japhethites (vv. 26–27). But this was because the Canaanites lived degrading lives like Ham, not because of what Ham did. The point is that nationally, at least, drunken debauchery enslaves a people. This is why, in God’s program to bless Israel, the Canaanites were condemned. They were to be judged by God through the Conquest because their activities were in the same pattern and mold as their ancestor Ham. The enslavement of Canaanites is seen in many situations in the history of the Old Testament. Such a case turned up fairly soon; the Canaanites were defeated and enslaved by eastern kings (chap. 14). Another example was the Gibeonites who later under Joshua became wood choppers and water carriers for V 1, p 42 Israel’s tabernacle (Josh. 9:27). If the subjugation of Canaan to Japheth’s line is to be carried to the extreme, as ‘eḇeḏ (slave, Gen. 9:26–27) sometimes implies, then it would go no further than the Battle of Carthage (146 b.c.) where the Phoenicians (who were Canaanites) were finally defeated. But Noah’s words seem to be more of a general than a specific prophecy, that the line of Shem will be blessed and the line of Ham in Canaan will be cursed. This blessing-cursing motif is crucial in Genesis. The Canaanites would have to be dispossessed from their place by Israel under Joshua in order for blessing to come on Shem (v. 26) and for the Japhethites to dwell in the tents of Shem (v. 27). This meant that the Japhethites would live with the Shemites on friendly terms, not that the Japhethites would dispossess the Shemites. So verses 24–29 actually set the foundation for Israel’s foreign policy in the land (Deut. 20:16–18)." John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985). Page . Exported from Logos Bible Software, 3:14 PM January 8, 2017.