The Flimflam Scam Called the “The Curse of Ham”
When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.
-Genesis 9:24–27
“On the morning of 10 June 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a former Kleagle of the West Virginia Ku Klux Klan, was concluding a fourteen-hour and thirteen-minute monologue on the floor of the United States Senate. His speech was part of a two-week-long filibuster of the United States Civil Rights Act. It was, and remains, the longest speech in the longest filibuster in the history of the Senate. Byrd had spoken all night and as the morning broke he turned to theology and the Bible. He was annoyed that ministers from across the country had filled his mailbox and jammed his phone lines in an attempt to “exert pressure” upon him to support the Act. He noted (incorrectly it should be added) that Virginia began importing slaves the same year that the King James Bible was published. Though he noted that he was not an expert in Scripture, he said he had spent considerable time searching to find “the Scriptural basis upon which we are implored to enact the proposed legislation…” After concluding his search he declared, “I find none.” In fact, he found the exact opposite. Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins convinced him that one must discriminate between the wise and foolish: “If all men are created equal, how can five of the virgins have been wise and five foolish?” To prove his point even more emphatically, he read Genesis 9.18–27 into the Congressional Record. To Byrd, Genesis 9 meant that God had endorsed racial separation and discrimination. In using Genesis 9 to support segregation and the continuance of Jim Crow, Byrd was relying upon the so-called “Curse of Ham.” According to the mythology that developed around this story, Noah cursed his son Ham to perpetual slavery. Ham, according to Genesis 10, was the founding father of Africa. Thus, Africans are an accursed race predestined by God to inferiority and slavery. Robert Byrd, who remains in the US Senate in 2009, demonstrates that the “Curse of Ham” has been used to support racial segregation and discrimination in the United States within living memory.”(1)
The “Curse of Ham” is a myth and false doctrine that is told in order to create the false impression that people of African descent are cursed by God and that The LORD wills their subjugation and segregation. The origins of this myth are the middle-ages and a Dominican friar and papal theologian Annius of Viterbo.(2) It was Viterbo who initially invoked “the Curse of Ham to explain the differences between Europeans and Africans in his writings. Annius, who frequently wrote of the "superiority of Christians over the Saracens", claimed that due to the curse imposed upon black people, they would inevitably remain permanently subjugated by Arabs and other Muslims. He wrote that the fact that so many Africans had been enslaved by the heretical Muslims was supposed proof of their inferiority. Through these and other writings, European writers established a hitherto unheard of connection between Ham, Africa and slavery, which laid the ideological groundwork for justifying the transatlantic slave trade." (3)
Most recently, Corey J. Mahler, a man who identifies himself as a Confessional Lutheran, despite being excommunicated from his church, has dredged up the myth of the “Curse of Ham” to justify his calls for people of African descent to be re-segregated and re-subjugated.
This begs the question, does the Bible teach that curse handed down by God through Noah in Genesis 9 is a curse on Black people of African descent?
Answer: NO!
A careful reading of Genesis 9 demonstrates that those who are promoting the myth of the Curse of Ham are twisting the scriptures and completely missing the point about what this curse is and what it truly pertains to.
Here is the entire account:
“Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him,
he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”
He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”” (Genesis 9:20–27)
Here are four quick exegetical insights from this text:
“1. Noah blessed Shem and Japheth.
A driving theme in Genesis is the promised seed of woman who will crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). The author traces the seed from Adam to Abel to Seth to Noah and here through Shem, who turns out to be the great-grandfather of Abraham (Gen. 11:10–26).
2. Not all of Ham’s sons were cursed.
Ham had four sons: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan, but only Canaan was cursed (Gen. 9:25–27; 10:6–20). The Canaanites’ abundant wickedness proved the curse was warranted. As a result, they were enslaved by a coalition of eastern kings (Gen. 14), by the Israelites during the conquest (Josh. 9:27; Judg. 1), and by Solomon during his reign as king (1 Kings 9:20–21).
3. The curse on Ham’s son wasn’t about skin color.
Noah’s curse of Canaan was due to his sinful conduct, not his skin color. Though most of Ham’s sons and the cities they built (Babel, Nineveh, Sodom, Gomorrah) were marked by idolatry and immorality, Canaan was uniquely evil and defiled the land (cf. Lev. 18). The Canaanites were cursed because they were evil-hearted, not because they were dark-skinned. In fact, recent scholarship has shown that “the name Ham is not related to the Hebrew or to any Semitic word meaning ‘dark’ [or] ‘black.’”
4. Ham wasn’t cursed.
Perhaps most glaringly, there is no curse of Ham in Genesis 9 or anywhere else in the Bible. Canaan, not Ham, was cursed by Noah. This means that the “biblical” doctrine used to justify the enslavement of dark-skinned peoples is completely fabricated and has no exegetical warrant.”(4)
Furtermore, Dr. Martin Luther, in his brilliant exegesis of this text, takes great pains to explain how the curse from this text is not a physical curse but a spiritual curse.
27. God will speak gently with Japheth, and he will dwell in the tents of Shem; but Canaan will be their slave.
This prophecy is amazing because of the remarkable aptness of the words. Noah does not bless Shem; he blesses the God of Shem. Thus he gives thanks to God for having cherished Shem and for having endowed him with the spiritual blessing, the blessing concerning the Seed of the woman. But when he gets to Japheth, he does not use the same expression he used concerning Shem. His obvious purpose was to point to the mystery of which Paul speaks in Rom. 11:11 and Christ in John 4:22, that salvation is from the Jews. Yet the Gentiles, too, share in this salvation. For although Shem alone is the true root and stock, nevertheless the Gentiles are grafted into this stock like a foreign scion, and they become partakers of the fertility and the sap that are in the chosen tree.
This light Noah sees through the Holy Spirit, and vaguely but precisely he foretells that the kingdom of Christ must be extended into the world from the stock of Shem, not from that of Japheth.
The Jews prate that Japheth signifies the neighboring nations round about Jerusalem which were admitted to the temple and its worship. But Noah does not concern himself at all with the temple at Jerusalem or with the tabernacle of Moses; he is dealing with more important matters. He is dealing with the three patriarchs who were to replenish the earth. Moreover, he states about Japheth that while he was not of the stock of the people of God, which has the promise concerning Christ, he is nevertheless to be called by the Gospel into the fellowship of that people which has God and the promises.
Hence the church of Gentiles and Jews is depicted here. Ham is a castaway and is not given access to the spiritual blessing of the Seed except insofar as this takes place through irregular grace. But Japheth, even though he does not, like Shem, have the promise of the Seed, is nevertheless given the hope that he will be embodied into the fellowship of the church. Thus we Gentiles, who are the children of Japheth, do not indeed have the promise given to us; and yet we are included in the promise that was given to the Jews, for we have been foreordained to the communion of the saints of the people of God. All this has been recorded, not for the sake of Shem and Japheth but for the sake of their descendants.
We see here the reason why the Jews are so puffed up and boastful. They see that their father Shem alone has the promise of the eternal blessing that is through Christ. But then they err by supposing that the promise is received as the result of natural descent and not as the result of faith. Paul treats this passage masterfully in Romans (9:6) when he says that the children of Abraham are not those who are descended from Abraham according to the flesh but those who believe as Abraham believed (Gal. 3:7).
In this passage Moses expresses the same idea dimly when he expressly declares: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem”; for this means that the blessing is nowhere except where the God of Shem is. Therefore not even a Jew will share in this promise unless he has the God of Shem, that is, unless he believes. Nor will Japheth share in the promise unless he dwells in the tents of Shem, that is, unless he is his partner in the same faith.
This is an outstanding promise. It remains in force until the end of the world. But just as we said that it applies only to those who have the God of Shem, or to those who believe, so the curse, too, applies only to those who continue in the ungodliness of Ham. For since Noah is not speaking these words as a human being or on his own authority and reason, but through the Spirit of God, he is speaking not merely of a temporal curse but of a spiritual and eternal one. Moreover, the curse must be understood as applying not only before the world but before God.
We made a similar statement previously about the curse of Cain. If you look at the events, Cain had a greater physical blessing than Seth. God wants the church to be in such a condition in this world that the curse of the ungodly appears to be transferred to it, and that, in contrast, the ungodly should appear to be blessed. Therefore Cain built the city of Enoch while Seth was dwelling in tents.
Similarly, Ham built the city and the tower of Babel, and also ruled over a wide area, while, on the contrary, Shem and Japheth were in want, living wretchedly in tents. Thus the outcome proves that the promises and the curses of God are to be understood, not in a carnal sense concerning the present life but in a spiritual sense. Although the godly are oppressed in the world, still they are most certainly the heirs and sons of God. The ungodly, on the other hand, even though they flourish for a time, are nevertheless finally cut off and wither, as the psalms often declare.
The deed as well as the lot of Ham and of Cain are almost alike. Cain kills his brother. This deed is proof enough that there was no respect for his parent in his heart. He is excommunicated by his father, secedes from the church that had the true God and the true worship, builds the city of Enoch, and devotes himself completely to civil concerns. Ham likewise sins against his father by his disrespect. When he later hears the verdict of the curse, by which he is excluded from the promise of the Seed and from the church, he smugly withdraws from God and from the church; for he is cursed, not in his own person but only in his son, and he goes to Babylon and there builds a royal city.
These are very fine examples. The church needs them. The Turk and the pope today permit us to glory in the heavenly and enduring blessing that we have the doctrine of the Gospel and are the church. They know our verdict about them, namely, that we regard and condemn both the pope and the Turk as the very Antichrist. Yet with what smugness they disregard this verdict, since they feel secure because of the riches and the power that they have, and because of our weakness and small number! We observe exactly the same attitude in the cursed and excommunicated Cain and Ham.
These experiences teach us that we must not look for a city or a secure place in this earthly life; but in the diversity of our mishaps and of our lot, which this life brings with it, we must look to the hope of eternal life that has been promised to us through Christ. This is, after all, the harbor toward which we, like anxious and attentive sailors, should steer with all our strength in the great violence of the storms.
What if the Turk should subject the entire world to his rule, something that will never happen? For according to Daniel (10:13), Michael will bring aid to the holy people, the church. What if the pope should acquire the wealth of the entire world, something he has been striving to attain with the utmost zeal for many centuries? Will they, perhaps, escape death for this reason or provide an enduring place for themselves in this life? Then why are we offended by their worldly blessings or even by our own misfortune and perils, since they have been banished from the fellowship of the saints, while we shall enjoy eternal blessings through the Son of God?
If, then, because of their brief and small good fortune in this life, Cain and Ham, as the ancestors, and the pope and Turk, as their descendants, can disregard the verdict of the true church, why do we, who are in sure possession of eternal blessings, not disregard their power and verdicts in turn? His father’s curse makes no impression on Ham; he is displeased with him, and despises him as a feebleminded old man. Ham goes away and provides himself with the power of the world. This he values more highly than if he had been blessed by his father along with Shem.
This passage serves to give us strength when we go through the same experience today. The popes and the bishops hold us in utmost contempt. What, say they, could these beggarly heretics do? They are puffed up by their wealth and power. But as for ourselves, let us calmly bear this insolence of the ungodly, just as Noah bore it at that time in the case of his son, and let us comfort ourselves with hope and faith in the eternal blessings, which we know they lack.
How tragic that Mr. Mahler, and others like him, are twisting this text to make it about race, which is a purely carnal and incorrect understanding of this passage. It is also important to note that Dr. Luther believed that because this passage was referring to spiritual blessings and curses, he believed the descendants of Ham were the Pope and the Turk, not the Africans.
As Gerret Kell writes “Satan is a master of Scripture-twisting (Matt. 4:1–11). He is the deceiver behind false teachers who serve his purposes by “disguising themselves as . . . as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:13–15). Given both its lack of exegetical warrant and its evil fruit, “the curse of Ham” interpretation can only be described as a “doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1–3)."(6)
For more information on the origin and history of the “Curse of Ham” the best academic work on the subject is David M. Whitford’s, The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era.
——-
1. Whitford, David M.. The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era (St Andrews Studies in Reformation History) (pp. 1-2). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
2. Ibid. p. 18
3. Curse of Ham, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
4. Kell, Gerret, Damn the Curse of Ham: How Genesis 9 Got Twisted into Racist Propaganda, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/damn-curse-ham/
5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 2: Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 2 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 178–182.
6. Kell, Gerret, Damn the Curse of Ham: How Genesis 9 Got Twisted into Racist Propaganda, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/damn-curse-ham/