The Shinar Directive – Part 4: The Mystery Religions and the Nephilim
by Michael K. Lake, Th.D.
What started false religions? In the beginning, everyone knew Noah and believed in the One True God. The Scriptures call Babylon the mother of all false religions, because under Nimrod the original false religious system was successfully implemented. We learn from the Church fathers that the root of this madness started with the sons of Ham.
Fallen angels taught men the use of magical incantations that would force demons to obey man. After the flood Ham the son of Noah unhappily discovered this and taught it to his sons. This became ingrained into the Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians. Ham died shortly after the fall of the Tower of Babel. Nimrod, called Ninus by the Greeks, was handed this knowledge and by it caused men to go away from the worship of God and go into diverse and erratic superstitions and they began to be governed by the signs in the stars and motions of the planets. (Recognitions of Clement 4.26–29)
Nimrod turned the government into a tyranny and set up twelve idols of wood named after the twelve months of the year, each representing a sign of the Zodiac. He commanded everyone to worship each idol in its proper month. (Jasher 9:8–10; Ancient Post-Flood History—Ken Johnson, ThD)[i]
All Pagan Roads Lead to Babylon
As stated in the previous entry, Noah and his family were selected by God to be saved from the Flood on the ark because they remained genetically pure (or still fully human). Unfortunately, the purity did not extend to all of their minds as well. Resting within the safety of the ark lay the seeds of the arcane knowledge given by the Watchers of Genesis 6. Ham became a sleeper agent of darkness, if you will, infected with the forbidden knowledge that resulted in the severe judgment of God upon humanity. Within the mind and heart of Ham were the foundational concepts upon which Babylon and Egypt were built (and upon which the kingdom of the Antichrist is being built today).
We find in Genesis 9:20–23 that the seeds of the Watchers already began to sprout within the heart of Ham.
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. (Genesis 9:20–23)
There is much speculation as to the actual sin of Ham contained in these verses. Was this sin the great dishonor and disrespect that Ham had shown to Noah? Alternatively, was it possible that he had sexually violated Noah in some way? Over the centuries, Christian theologians and rabbinical scholars have debated these issues. The New American Commentary dives into the subject and provides a sensible conclusion:
What was Ham’s sin? Why did Noah invoke curses against Canaan instead of the culprit, Ham ([Genesis 9]:25)? The meaning of the phrase “saw his father’s nakedness” has been variously interpreted. Both Jewish and Christian interpretation speculated that Ham’s deed was a sexual offense since the same language is found in the Pentateuch describing sexual transgressions. Further support was garnered from v. 25, which refers to what Ham “had done to him.” Many suppose that the original story contained the sordid details but that they were excised for reasons of propriety when later placed in the Torah. Castration was thought to have been the crime by some Jewish and Christian interpreters, and others argued for a homosexual act. Jewish midrash explained that physical abuse by Ham answered why the curse was directed against Canaan; this act prevented Noah from having a fourth son, and thus Canaan as Ham’s fourth son should suffer (Gen. Rab. 36.7). This may have been fueled by the absence of any notice that additional children were born to Noah, since all the other patriarchs are said to have had “other sons and daughters” (5:3–32; 11:10–25). This lack of reference to other children, however, may be due to the author’s desire to parallel the Sethite and Shemite lines, which both end with three sons (5:32; 11:26).
Concerning a homosexual desire or act, there is no indication that a sexual indiscretion occurred when Ham viewed his father or that Ham desired his father in an illicit way. Levitical language for the homosexual act is “to lie with a male,” which we do not find here. “Saw”…is the common term for observing and does not convey necessarily the idea of sexual lust; the term can be used in this way (cf. 6:2; 34:2), but such meaning must be derived from the context and not the term by itself. On the contrary, the expressions “to see…nakedness” (Lev 20:17) and “to uncover…nakedness” are used of heterosexual actions, not homosexual encounters. The expression in our passage is not a figurative statement since the two sons actually cover up the exposed nakedness of their father, who was in a drunken stupor in the tent. This is reinforced by the description “their faces were turned.” If in fact some lecherous deed occurred inside the tent, it is inexplicable why the covering of their father is in juxtaposition to Ham’s act. On other occasions Genesis is straightforward in its description of sexual misconduct (e.g., 19:5, 30–35; 34:2). There is no reason to assume that homosexuality or, for that matter, heterosexual misconduct would be described euphemistically by the author.
Ham’s reproach was not in seeing his father unclothed, though this was a shameful thing (cp. Hab 2:15), but in his outspoken delight at his father’s disgraceful condition. The penalty against Ham’s son may be thought too severe for mere sibling gossip, but this is because we fail to understand the gravity of Ham’s offense. We have commented elsewhere (see 2:25; 3:7) that nakedness was shameful in Hebrew culture. In later Israel specific prohibitions guarded against the public exposure of the genitals and buttocks (e.g., Exod 20:26; 28:42), and nakedness was commonly associated with public misconduct (e.g., Exod 32:25). It is not surprising then that the euphemism “nakedness” was used for the shameful travesty of incest. Ham ridiculed the “old man’s” downfall. In the ancient world insulting one’s parents was a serious matter that warranted the extreme penalty of death. Mosaic legislation reflected this sentiment. This patriarchal incident illustrated the abrogation of the Fifth Commandment, “Honor your father and mother.” To do so means divine retaliation, for the crime is not against parent alone but is viewed as contempt for God’s hierarchical order in creation. Shem and Japheth, unlike Ham, treated Noah with proper respect. They refused to take advantage of him despite his vulnerable condition.[ii]