"
and he was uncovered within his tent."
Noah was uncovered within his tent. First, I wanted to point out that it is possible that the word "
uncovered" here may not just be to let us know that Noah was naked, but that he potentially could have had intimate relations with his wife (For the word "uncovered" is used of intimate relations in Leviticus and it also fits the following context of Genesis 9 (More on this in my next comment below)).
On my second point, have you ever heard of the "
law of first mention" in the Bible? Well, if you haven't, the "
law of first mention" is said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine or truth. When we thus see the first appearance, which is usually in the simplest form, we can then examine the doctrine (or truth) in other portions of the Word that were given later. The fundamental concept in the first occurrence remains dominant as a rule, and colors all later additions to that doctrine. In view of this fact, it becomes imperative that we understand the law of first mention.
The book of Genesis has Properly been called the "
seed-plot" of the Bible. The word, Genesis, comes from the Greek expression which in its verbal form means to begin, or, to come into existence. This first book of the revelation of God is properly called, therefore, "
the book of beginnings."
In Genesis 9, most people believe that Noah got drunk, and naked, which resulted in his two sons covering their father's nakedness. They believe that in the story of Noah's drunkenness in Genesis chapter 9, Ham had uncovered his father's nakedness which then caused Noah to curse Ham's son (Canaan). While this story is partially true in the fact that Noah got drunk and was naked within his tent, most don't bother to ask the question: "Why would Noah curse Ham's child Canaan for what Ham did?"
Well, I believe the fog lifts from the riddle of this question when we read
Leviticus 20:11. For in this verse we learn that if one lieth with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness. So the phrase "
uncovered his father's nakedness" is in relation to sleeping with one's father's wife. In other words, Ham had uncovered Noah's nakedness (i.e. his father's nakedness) by sleeping with Noah's wife. Now, whether Noah's wife enticed Ham or whether Ham forced himself upon his own mother is not spoken of within the text of Genesis 9. It just says Ham uncovered his father's nakedness (Which would mean the nakedness of Noah's wife if we were to apply the Biblical terminology as spoken of in
Leviticus 20:11).
However, if we are to ignore the terminology in
Leviticus 20:11, and we are to regard the text as only speaking of Noah and not his wife, then we do have to ask several questions, though.
#1. "Why didn't Noah curse Ham instead of Canaan?"
#2. "Why did Noah's sons cover their father's nakedness if he was uncovered within his tent?
#3. "Why didn't Noah have any more children with his wife? (
Genesis 10:1 KJV)"
In fact, if we were to look in Scripture at other related places in the Bible we would see similar instances of drunkenness and sexual immorality taking place. For example: We see Lot's daughters enticing their father with wine and they fornicated with him.
This is also a parallel of what is happening now and what will continue take place all the way up to the End Times when Jesus returns, too. For Mystery Babylon (The spiritual harlot church) who is described as a woman has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication (
Revelation 14:8 KJV); And this woman is drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (
Revelation 17:6 KJV).
This is important to note that it is the nations that fornicated with this spiritual harlot who is drunk with the blood of the saints because the result of the sin of Noah's son Ham had caused a ripple effect of sin into his future generation of children from his fornication with his own mother (which resulted in Canaan and the Canaanites); And the Israelites were later commanded by God to destroy the Canaanites (
Deuteronomy 20:17 KJV) for their pagan worship of other gods (
Deuteronomy 7:3–5) (
Deuteronomy 12:2,
3) (
Exodus 34:12,
13); For these Canaanites were obviously the offspring of Canaan which were the result of an act of sin.
The same thing resulted from the drunkenness and fornication that was caused by Lot's daughters. One of their sons, whose name was Moab, had ended up being the father of the Moabites (
Genesis 19:37 KJV) and at times, the Moabites were great enemies of Israel. For it was the Balak, king of Moab, who hired Balaam the prophet, hoping that he could curse Israel (Numbers 22-25). It was Eglon, king of Moab, who oppressed Israel in the days of the Judges (
Judges 3:12-30). During the time of Saul and David, Israel established a firm control over Moab, but later kings of Israel were not always able to keep them under Israeli dominance; And thus, they were a thorn in the side of God's people.
Sources:
Biblical Research Studies Group-The Law of First Mention
Isaiah 15 - The Burden Against Moab