And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren outside.
All Commentaries on Genesis 9:22 Go To Genesis 9
John Chrysostom
AD 407
To be sure, some will say, this shows that the reason he did not curse Ham was that he had enjoyed blessing from God. Nevertheless, why is it that though Ham was the sinner, Canaan had to pay the penalty? This does not happen idly either. Ham did not endure less punishment than his son. He too felt its effects. You know well, of course, how in many cases fathers have begged to endure punishment in place of their children. Seeing their children bearing punishment proves a more grievous form of chastisement for the fathers than being subject to it themselves. Accordingly, this incident occurred so that Ham should endure greater anguish on account of his natural affection, so that God’s blessing should continue without impairment and so that his son in being the object of the curse should atone for his own sins. You see, even if in the present instance he bears the curse on account of his father’s sin, nevertheless it was likely that he was atoning for his own failings. In other words, it was not only for his father’s sin that he bore the curse but perhaps also for the purpose of his suffering a heavier penalty on his own account. After all, for proof that parents are not punished for their children, nor children for their parents, each being liable for the sins he has committed, you can find frequent statements among the inspired authors—as, for instance, when they say, “The teeth of the one eating sour grapes shall be set on edge,” “The soul that shall die is the soul that sins,” and again, “Parents shall not die for their children, nor children for their parents.”
