The Curse of Ham

The History of Mankind in Three Verses

In Genesis 9, it is recorded that Ham sinned against his father Noah. The Holy Ghost is deliberately sparse on the details of what precisely Ham did. Although it is the glory of kings to search things out (or at least to handle rightly that which has been revealed), there are times and places when and where wisdom argues against investigation or inquisitiveness, and I believe that Ham’s sin is one such place, and so I will, here as elsewhere, decline to speculate on the nature of Ham’s sin — it is sufficient to note that Ham’s actions were sufficiently wicked that God cursed his entire line. We would do better to hear and fear than to become unduly and unprofitably curious.

The nature of Ham’s transgression aside, it is quite profitable to explore and to analyze Father Noah’s prophecy concerning his three sons and their progeny. The prophecy is in reverse birth order (Ham the ‘younger’ or ‘youngest’ [Genesis 9:24 — νεώτερος]; “Japheth the elder” [Genesis 10:21 — Ἰάφεθ τοῦ μείζονος]), and we will treat it in that order. For the first section, we will simply assume that Ham is meant where Canaan is spoken and recorded; in the second section, I will make the argument that we must interpret the curse as of Ham. In the final section, we will (further) assess whether or not the prophecy has played out in time.

Initial Exegesis

Naturally, when exegeting a passage, it is necessary, first, to look at the text:

The prophecy is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three sons of Noah from whom will descend the three great races of men: From Japheth, the sons of Europa; from Shem, the sons of (greater) Asia; and from Ham, the sons of Africa. It is to these that Noah’s prophecy applies, but from youngest to oldest. Ham is cursed; Shem is implicitly blessed; and Japheth is explicitly blessed twice.

First, Noah curses Ham and his offspring (for the reasons Noah says “Canaan” instead of “Ham” and the reasons we must read “Ham” instead of “Canaan”, see the next section of this article). The words of Father Noah are actually more forcefully terse than the “Cursed be Canaan.” we typically have in our English translations; what Noah actually says is just two words, an adjective and a name: Accursed Canaan. Noah — and the Holy Ghost — is so aggrieved by the wickedness of Ham that he not only declines to speak his name, but he simultaneously gives him a new one: Accursed. From that moment forward, Ham may as well have simply been known by Accursed as by his (former) name. In his triple or tripartite office of prophet, priest, and king, Noah pronounces judgement upon his youngest son — for all time. The prophecy both curses Ham and looks forward to describe the nature of his offspring (more, infra). Unlike the true Offspring of Abraham (Genesis 12) in Whom all the world is blessed (Hebrews), the sons of Ham do not carry a blessing with them, but a curse. Beyond simply being accursed, Ham is also condemned by Noah to be a slave^[1] of his brothers. The corrupted Masoretic Text (MT) says that Ham will be a ‘slave of slaves’^[2] — a Shemitic formulation of the superlative (i.e., the lowest of slaves) —, but this is an inaccurate transmission — a corruption — of what Father Noah actually said. Noah does not say that Ham will be δοῦλος δούλων or ἔσχατος δούλων (respectively, ‘slave of slaves’ and ‘lowest of slaves’); rather, Noah says that Ham will be a παῖς οἰκέτης (‘a household slave’). The construction is actually a double noun: παῖς (“one who is committed in total obedience to another, slave, servant” [BDAG]) and οἰκέτης (“member of the household … house slave, domestic, and slave” [BDAG]). This is a significantly different prophecy from ‘the lowest of slaves’. Contrary to what the MT would have us believe, Ham is not actually cursed to be the lowest of slaves (‘a slave of slaves’); in fact, there is a blessing for the sons of Ham contained in what seems superficially to be just a curse.

This is not to say that the sons of Ham are not cursed, for assuredly they are (more, infra); rather, it is to say that, even as Noah curses his wicked son, he simultaneously reaffirms the universal nature of the Gospel — yes, even the sons of wicked and accursed Ham may be saved. The παῖς οἰκέτης is a household slave, who serves in the οἶκος — the house, the household, or the “Christian community as the spiritual temple of God” (BDAG, emphasis added). Contained in Noah’s prophetic curse on Ham and his offspring is not only a promise or a reminder that the Gospel yet remains, but also a prophecy about how the sons of Ham will be saved (so far as some of them are): As slaves in the house of Shem which becomes the house of Japheth (i.e., Christendom). The sons of Ham may yet be saved, but only as slaves of their Christian brothers.^[3] This prophecy is fulfilled, first, when some Egyptians convert and join the Exodus and then some Canaanites (e.g., the Gibeonites) are not only not wiped out, but become perpetual slaves of their Shemitic brothers (and some convert to Christianity in the process) and, second, when the sons of Japheth conquered the world during the colonial era and bring many (even most) of the sons of Ham into subjection, and convert many in the process. What God promised by the voice of Father Noah came to pass — a test of whether or not a prophecy (or an interpretation thereof) is true:

Deuteronomy 18:22 (ESV):

»when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.«

Second, Noah implicitly blesses Shem and his offspring. We must always pay careful attention to the Word of God, as it is written (γέγραπται, to quote Jesus), and so, here, we read that Noah blesses the Lord, not Shem, and yet to have the Lord God as one’s God is a blessing, and so Shem and his offspring are blessed implicitly, at least so long as they remain faithful to the Lord. There is, of course, also the additional layer of the reiteration of the prophecy that the Christ will be born of the seed of the woman, specifically from the line of Shem, thus making Him, in another sense, the God (Who descends from the line) of Shem. In blessing Shem, Noah also reiterates that Ham will be Shem’s παῖς — slave.

Third, Noah explicitly blesses Japheth twice. We have here a sort of progression in the prophecy: Ham is cursed (and implicitly blessed), Shem is implicitly blessed, and Japheth, as befits the eldest son (Deuteronomy 21:17), is explicitly doubly blessed. Japheth, like Shem, is blessed; Japheth, unlike Shem, is, again, explicitly blessed. There are, in fact, two distinct blessings: First, Japheth is blessed in that God will ‘enlarge’ him and, second, Japheth is blessed in that he will ‘dwell in the house of Shem’ (i.e., become [or build] Christendom). These are two of the greatest and most important prophecies and blessings in all of Scripture — they not only presage, but drive much of human history. However, just as with Shem, these prophecies — these blessings — apply to Japheth only when and to the extent that he remains faithful to the Lord God. When our forefathers were faithful, God handed us the world (i.e., enlarged Japheth), and when we grew decadent and faithless, God took the world from us. That the remnants and seeds of Christendom remain with us is due only to God’s grace and His promise spoken here in Genesis by Father Noah (i.e., that we shall dwell in the house of Shem). It is worth noting that the first blessing on Japheth is in the optative mood, which is a verbal form that expresses a wish or a desire. However, it is not just Noah, as father, expressing his desire to his faithful firstborn, but also Noah as priest expressing God’s desire to enlarge Japheth. This form is found in a number of other (significant) prophecies in the Old Testament: e.g., the Christological prophecy concerning Judah (Genesis 49), Balaam’s oracle in Numbers 49, and the dominion prophecy in Psalm 72. When Noah prophesies that the Lord will enlarge Japheth, what he is actually expressing is the desire of God to bless and enlarge the sons of Japheth — if only they will remain faithful. And, as with Shem, Noah again reiterates the curse upon Ham, but expanding it this time from ‘his’ to ‘their’ — emphasizing both the nature of the curse (Ham will serve both his brothers) and the nature of the implied blessing (Ham is blessed only when he serves his brothers).

One may think of the interpretation of pharoah’s dreams by Joseph, in which it is stated that the “doubling of [the dreams] means that the thing is fixed by God” (Genesis 41:32). If a mere doubling means that the thing is fixed by God, then what does it mean that Noah repeats the curse upon Ham not two times, but three times?

“Canaan”, Not “Ham”, and Yet Ham, and Not Canaan

Naturally — even appropriately —, some will ask: If Noah (and God) intends to curse Ham, why does he say Canaan? I will defend the traditional position using five arguments, in order^[4]: the chronological, the rhetorical, the logical, the historical, and the Scriptural.

First, the chronology of events seems to imply that Noah would have been cursing an infant (perhaps even one under a year old), if the curse is meant for Canaan alone. This does not necessarily mean that Noah was not specifically cursing Canaan (for he could have been employing prophetic prolepsis, even if Canaan were not yet born), but it is certainly something worth noting when examining the prophecy in light of the timeline given in Scripture: No grandchildren of Noah are mentioned until after the Flood (and Scripture explicitly states that the Ark saved eight persons [1 Peter 3:20]), Noah had to plant a vineyard and harvest grapes to make wine (absolute minimum, two years), Canaan is the fourth child of Ham (if Ham’s wife was pregnant upon exiting the Ark [she probably was], then at least three or four years would need to elapse from the Flood to the birth of Canaan), and Scripture seems to imply this event happened (relatively) shortly after the Flood. Taken together, it seems likely Canaan was at most ten, and perhaps significantly younger — most likely insufficient time to discern what sort of man he would become^[5].

Second, Scripture often employs rhetoric, and Noah is doing so here in his prophecy. Specifically, Noah is employing (in addition to the aforementioned possibility of prolepsis) synecdoche, metonymy, and personification. Both synecdoche and metonymy are figures of speech wherein a term or thing that is related to another term or thing is used in place of the actual term of thing meant. With metonymy, the relationship is more metaphysical, conceptual, or associational; with synecdoche, the relationship is more personal, intimate, or essential. Both rhetorical devices are in play here, but more synecdoche than metonymy. Metonymically, Canaan is used as he is the exemplar of his father’s wickedness and, thus, associated with his father dispositionally, morally, et cetera. Synecdochically, Canaan is used because he is the subpart of Ham that is, for instance, most relevant to the Biblical narrative (and so he is mentioned specifically, even though all of Ham is cursed). Quite clearly, Noah is also employing a form of personification in his prophecy in that he speaks of Ham, Shem, and Japheth, but means, first and foremost (except, perhaps, in the case of Ham’s curse, where he may indeed mean it, first, upon Ham himself and, second, upon his progeny) the nations that will come from each of the three patriarchs. In the case of Canaan, another sort of personification is in play: the sort of personification in which a person is a sort of ‘avatar’ or prime example of an attribute — in this case, Canaan being a personification of the wickedness of his father. Although there are a number of other rhetorical devices we could examine here (e.g., antonomasia, periphrasis, allusion), we will limit this section to one more: circumlocution. When one, for whatever reason, does not wish to mention a person or a thing, one may employ circumlocution, in which a person or thing is described or otherwise mentioned without such mention being explicit. Here, both Noah and the Holy Ghost are so aggrieved by the wickedness of Ham that Noah refuses even to use his name — using Canaan instead to mean Ham, his father. Martin Luther to such effect:

More profitable and more deserving of notice is this: the Holy Spirit is moved to such great wrath against the disobedient and contemptuous son that he even refuses to call him by his own name but designates him as Canaan, after his son. Some maintain that because God was willing to save Ham in the ark with the others as though he were one who was blessed, Noah wanted to curse his son Canaan, not him. Nevertheless, the curse upon the son recoils upon the father, who deserved it. Hence the name Ham disappears at this point because the Holy Spirit hates it, and this is indeed an ominous hatred. Thus the psalm also states: “I hate them with perfect hatred” (139:22). When the Holy Spirit begins to hate and to be angry, eternal death follows.
 
Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, II

Ham is cursed by his father.
 
Ibid. (emphasis added)

The Holy Spirit’s great wrath is exhibited in this passage when it states about Ham: “He shall be a slave of slaves,” that is, the lowest and most abject slave.
 
Ibid. (emphasis added)

How, then, is it true that Ham is cursed and Shem is blessed?
 
Ibid. (emphasis added)

I stated previously that the Holy Spirit was so perturbed by Ham’s sin that He could not even endure to mention him by name in the curse.
 
Ibid. (emphasis added)

Augustine on the same:

It is for this reason that Ham was cursed in the person of his son.
 
— Augustine, The City of God, XVI (emphasis added)

We then return to Canaan, the son in whose person Ham was cursed.
 
— Ibid. (emphasis added)

Perhaps we may think of another verse here:

»“14 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”«
— Exodus 17:14 (ESV)

Third, logically, neither Noah nor God forgot that Noah had three sons named Japheth, Shem, and Ham. It is quite clear that Noah’s prophecy is for all of humanity; Noah did not forget one third of humanity when handing out curses and blessings. Ham is named in, with, and through Canaan (more, infra), but it is, indeed, Ham and his line who are cursed, just as Japheth and his line are blessed. This interpretation is strongly bolstered by history and Scripture, infra, as it is clear that the other sons of Ham were also cursed, not ‘forgotten’ or simply left ’neutral’ (i.e., un-blessed and un-cursed).

Fourth, historically, it is clear that the curse applied to all of the sons of Ham, not just Canaan (more on one specific aspect of this, infra). The present state of Africa (and the African, wherever he may be found) is not an incidental or an accidental matter. In part, Noah’s prophecy about (curse on) Ham was a prediction — the Holy Ghost inspiring Noah with foreknowledge —, more so than God causing the foretold outcome. To be clear: The state of the sons of Ham is due — overwhelmingly — to their own evil and their millennia-long communion with demons; Noah, in the Spirit, foretold that this is what the sons of Ham would do. We can also take Egypt^[6] as a specific instance of the curse aspect playing out in time (and in the pages of Scripture). It seems unlikely many Egyptians who survived Exodus^[7] would consider themselves blessed by God.

The African has contributed vanishingly little to human history. When Europeans sailed around Africa in great ships armed with cannons, the African had still not discovered^[8] the wheel. Today, Europeans have walked on the Moon and are busily investigating the secrets of the Universe — and many Africans still do not have the wheel and live in mud huts. I am writing this article with a pen no African could design, no African firm could produce, and vanishingly few Africans could afford, and I will be transcribing it using a machine far more advanced and expensive still. God has blessed the sons of Japheth; He has not done so for the sons of Ham. The average IQ of the sons of Ham is more than two standard deviations below the average for the sons of Japheth. Africa is filled with violence, crime, and suffering, and such follows the sons of Ham wherever they go, for they are the cause of it. The only time anywhere in Africa has had functional government and a functioning society and institutions in recorded history (after Biblical times) is when and where it has been under European rule — colonialism. Many, many more examples could be given, but the point is more than sufficiently clear already. The sons of Ham could be called many things: blessed (except when ruled by their brothers) is not among them, but cursed most certainly is.

Fifth, Scripturally, God does punish the sons for the sins of their fathers:

›I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.‹
— Exodus 20:5 (ESV)

Some will argue that this is at odds with other parts of Scripture (e.g., Ezekiel 18:20), but the matter becomes clear when the full teaching of Scripture on the matter is examined. While a lengthy treatment of this subject will have to wait for another article, the short version is that no man is damned for the sins of his father or forefathers; however, all men are burdened or cursed by the sins of their fathers or forefathers. This is easily grasped when looking at certain concrete examples (e.g., if a man is the son of an alcoholic, he will certainly suffer for the sins of his father, even though those sins [of his father] will not damn the son). You will not go to Hell for the sins of your father, but you may very well have a harder time in life because of them.

Historical Fulfillment

Finally, let us look at the historical fulfillment of Noah’s prophecy. Shem first, as his fulfillment can be addressed most briefly: So long as the sons of Shem (in particular, the line of Jacob [Israel]) remained faithful to the Lord God, they were blessed (e.g., the conquest of Canaan under Joshua). Japheth next: God has most certainly enlarged Japheth: Our languages are the languages of Scripture, philosophy, science, commerce, and empire; our clothing styles dominate the world^[9]; and we are the ones who built Christendom and spread the Gospel to the world (i.e., dwelt in the house of Shem). Ham last: Some of the nature of Ham’s curse was already explored, supra, and so, here, I will focus on just two matters: Ham as slave of his brothers and Ham’s implied blessing as a house slave of his brothers. First, we must ask if Canaan was ever a slave of his brothers, for he must so have been for the curse to be fulfilled in Canaan (as some contend) instead of in Ham (as I, and others, contend). Certainly the Canaanites (some, anyway) were enslaved by the Israelites; thus, the prophecy that Canaan would serve Shem has been fulfilled. What of Canaan serving Japheth? Japheth never enslaved Canaan. Further, the Canaanites, like the Israelites or the Northern Kingdom, were destroyed in antiquity, which is to say that under the interpretation that rejects “Canaan” as standing in for Ham, not only has the prophecy not been fulfilled (Canaan never served Japheth), but the prophecy never will be — cannot be — fulfilled (Canaan is extinct). As God cannot lie and His prophecies always come true, the contention that only Canaan is cursed must be false. The curse applies to all the sons of Ham with Canaan as synecdochical stand-in and (in some ways) exemplar. Second, we must ask if Canaan alone is blessed via being a house slave to his brothers. The answer is clearly no, as Canaan never served Japheth. Further, God commanded Old Testament Israel to exterminate the Canaanites, not to enslave and convert them; although a partial fulfillment with regard to the Gibeonites must be noted (Joshua 9). How, then, has this been fulfilled with regard to Japheth and Ham? In a word: Colonialism. It was under the colonial conquest of the world that the sons of Japheth not only brought the Gospel to the world (further fulfilling the prophecy), but also ruled over the sons of Ham, making them house slaves, fulfilling the prophecy. In fact, we see most African nations reverting to paganism or falling to syncretism without European supervision — the prophecy is for all time. If an interpretation of a prophecy is at odds with history (and thereby makes of God a liar), then that interpretation is eisegesis, not exegesis, and must be discarded. Canaan is cursed in Ham and Ham is cursed in Canaan, but the curse is of Ham and applies to all of his sons for all time.

Conclusion

Even if the curse of Ham were not the traditional interpretation of Genesis 9 (it is), we would still, per the foregoing, be bound to hold it, for it is manifestly clear that the curse of Ham, not of Canaan, is the correct interpretation. To call it the ‘curse of Canaan’ is to call God a liar, for we see that all the sons of Ham are cursed and no Canaanites remain to serve the sons of Japheth; further, there is the great irony of the fact that those who endeavor to erase Ham’s curse succeed only in eisegeting away his implied blessing, for nothing of the cursed nature of the African — the Hamite — is removed or ameliorated in the slightest by denying that he is cursed. Declaring an insane man sane does not restore to him his sanity; declaring a sick man well does not restore to him his health; declaring a Hamite uncursed does not in any way whatsoever change his fallen, wicked, corrupt, and accursed nature, but it does conceal the one way Scripture gives as a sanctifying path for him: Enslavement as a παῖς οἰκέτης — a household slave — in the house of his elder brother Japheth (i.e., under an imperial Christendom). We serve the best interests of no one when we deny the true meaning of Scripture or the plain truth of reality. By the Word of God and by the evidence of our own eyes, we know that the African is cursed to be a slave to his brother Japheth. The only question is what we do with these truths. God has given us the pattern in His Word. Let us neither call too loudly ‘freedom’ to cloak our weariness (or our indolence), nor shrink back from duties some find unpleasant or distasteful. God has made Japheth, the firstborn to whom such things fall by nature and by right, master over his brothers. It is long overdue, and there are many arrears to make good.

Gott mit uns.