One racist myth is that the
“Hamites” were black savages, ‘natural slaves’—and “Negroes”. This identification of the “Hamite” with “Negros”
served as a rationale for slavery, which relied on biblical misinterpretation to
support its tenets. The image of the “Negro” deteriorated in direct proportion
to the growth of the importance of slavery, and it became imperative for the
white man to exclude the “Negro” from the brotherhood of races.[1]
Following some unseemly
event, nebulously described in Genesis 9:19 – 9:23, in verse 24, Noah wakes
from his drunkenness and is said to have known what his youngest son had done
to him. The operative words here are youngest
son. The racist tradition is
that Noah was referring to his son Ham.
But how is Ham Noah’s youngest son given that the birth order is listed
as Shem Ham and Japheth?
The birth order of
offspring in the Hebrew Scriptures (HS), commonly referred to as the Old
Testament (OT) is typically given from eldest to youngest. In Genesis 5:32, the birth order of Noah’s
immediate offspring is given as Shem Ham and Japheth. Likewise, the first
chapter of Chronicles presents genealogies in birth order sequence to include the
same sequence as given in Genesis 5:32 for Noah’s immediate offspring.[2]
Noah was referring to
his grandson Canaan, not his son Ham. As
a matter of custom, all of a man’s male offspring, i.e. sons, grandsons, great
grandsons, etc. were reckoned as his own sons.
For example, in Genesis 48:5 Jacob declares that Joseph’s first born
sons Ephraim and Manasseh are his sons just as Reuben and Simeon are his sons.
It may be argued that if
Noah were referring to Canaan the text would have used the words:
וידע
את אשׁר־עשׂה־לו נכדו
That is, He knew what his
son’s son had done to him.[3] While this may appear to be plausible, the
Hebrew expression בנו הקטן, i.e. “his
youngest son” identifies the culprit precisely.
Recall that all of a man’s male offspring may be referred to as his
sons. Any of Noah’s son’s sons would
qualify as “his son’s son;” however, only Canaan qualifies as Noah’s “youngest
son,” as evidently he was at the time the youngest of all of Noah’s male
progeny.
That Noah is referring
to Canaan as his youngest son is certain.
It is Canaan not Ham upon whom Noah pronounces the
curse. Consider that it is in Genesis
9:18 and 9:23 that Canaan is introduced to us before Ham’s genealogy is given
in Genesis 10:6 – 20. Canaan is mentioned
here for no other purpose than to identify him as Noah’s youngest son, i.e. the
grandson that is the youngest of Noah’s progeny.
The account of Noah’s
drunkenness and the ultimate curse pronounced upon Canaan is that of cause and
effect. Noah’s drunkenness and whatever ensuing
offense was perpetrated against him are the causes. The effect is the punishment of the
perpetrator, i.e. Noah’s curse against his “youngest son” Canaan. Would Noah who was a preacher of
righteousness, who by faith, being warned of God, obediently prepared the ark, have
condemned his innocent grandson Canaan if he knew his own son Ham was the
guilty party?[4] Could Noah who had recently witnessed the justice
of The Creator upon the earth and experienced His mercy for over one year in
the ark unjustly condemn Canaan for the guilt of Ham? According to Jeremiah chapter 31 verses 29 –
30 and the entire 18th chapter of Ezekiel, it is unjust for a son to be
punished for his father’s sins and vice versa.[5]
When we read the HS in
context, it is abundantly clear that this curse of Ham is a myth that is
inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the HS. Ham was not Noah’s “youngest son.” As
previously mentioned, genealogies in the HS are typically given in order of
birth. In the account of the division of
the nations in Genesis chapter 10, Noah’s son’s genealogies are given first for
Japheth, then Ham and finally for Shem in the reverse order of their
birth. Regardless of which order of
birth is given, oldest to youngest or youngest to oldest, Ham is clearly fixed
in the middle of the two.
How then can we know who was
cursed? Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan; a
servant of servant shall he be unto his brethren.” Canaan is the father of the Canaanites
including the Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Amorites. In Genesis chapter 15, The Creator cut a
blood covenant with Abraham to give unto his seed, i.e. Ya’aqob/Yisrael the
land of the Canaanites after Ya’aqob/Yisrael first served the Egyptians.
Gen 15:13 And He said unto Abram: 'Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Gen 15:14 and also that nation, whom they
shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with
great substance.
Gen 15:15 But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace;
thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 And in the fourth generation they shall
come back hither; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full.'
Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went
down, and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming
torch that passed between these pieces.
Gen 15:18 In that day the LORD made a covenant
with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of
Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates;
Gen 15:19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the
Kadmonite,
Gen 15:20 and the Hittite, and the
Perizzite, and the Rephaim,
Gen 15:21 and the Amorite, and the
Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.'
As The Creator prophesied unto
Abraham, the Israelites became servants of the Egyptians. It was and is still common that servitude of
one nation to another involve forfeiture of freedom and possessions including
land. After serving the Egyptians, the
Israelites were to totally possess the land of Canaan. Thus the Canaanites were to become servants
of those, i.e. the Israelites, who had previously been
servants to the Egyptians.
While the HS presents seemingly conflicting testimony as to whether
Israel ever totally possessed the land of Canaan, Joshua Chapter 9 and Judges
Chapter 1 provide evidence of the fulfillment of Noah’s curse upon Canaan. In both chapters the Canaanites are relegated
to servitude to the Israelites.
Subsequent to the forgoing myth,
another myth emerged regarding Ham. At
some point, Euro-gentiles had to come to grips with the fact that Mitzraim
(Egypt) like Canaan was also a son of Ham.
If Ham was cursed, how is it that a race of inferior, degenerate “Negros”
could be responsible for any of the wonders of Egypt? Furthermore, certain Canaanites were renowned
as seafaring people that possessed superior nautical technology. They also
recognized that descendants of Canaan, who they cleverly dubbed Phoenicians,
contributed to the development of the Hebrew, Greek and Western languages. They
reasoned that no such good could come from the “Negroes.” So the Euro-gentile concocted the myth that
“Hamite” designates an African population supposedly distinguished by its race—
Caucasian—and its language family, from the “Negro” inhabitants of the rest of
Africa below the Sahara.
The
crux of this myth is that that everything of value ever found in Africa was
brought there or produced by these Hamites, a people inherently superior to the
native populations. This belief, often referred to as the Hamitic hypothesis,
is a convenient explanation for all the signs of civilization found in Black
Africa. It was these Caucasoids who
taught the “Negro” how to manufacture iron and who were so politically
sophisticated that they organized the conquered territories into highly complex
states with themselves as the ruling elites.[6] Thus to those that the Euro-gentile had
successfully deceived, to the naïve and to the unlearned, it would seem natural
for the Russian born Yul Brynner to portray the Hamitic
monarch Pharaoh whose court is attended by “Negro” slaves.
In reality, this is preposterous!
As we see, both myths are egregious lies
conceived and propagated by those that would twist the HS to serve their only
evil purposes. But we have been
admonished to study to show ourselves approved of God, workmen
that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[7]
[1]
Paraphrased from E. R. Sanders’ ‘Hamites in Anthropology and History: A
Preliminary Study’, unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, 1965.
[2] 1st
Chronicles 1:4
[4]
See 2d Peter 2:5
[5]
See also Genesis 18:18 – 33 regarding condemnation of the just with the unjust
and John 9:1 - 3
[6] Above
n 1
[7] 2d
Timothy 2:15
No comments:
Post a Comment