Saturday, August 18, 2012

The Racist Myth of the Curse of Ham


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
[3] The Hebrew root נכד is translated “son’s son” in Genesis 21:23 and Job 18:19
[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

Sunday, February 4, 2007

The Star of David

What is the Star of David? The Random House College Dictionary defines the Star of David as, "a figure symbolic of Judaism, consisting of a six-pointed star formed of two identical equilateral triangles placed one upon the other so that each side of one is trisected by two sides of the other triangle." The Hebrew expression describing this shape is Magen Daweed, Magen David or Mogen Dovid, depending upon dialect. The word Magen is accurately translated as shield. Thus the shape to which the expression "Magen Daweed" refers is best translated Shield of David vs. Star of David. I used to wear a Magen Daweed as a statement that I was a Hebrew because other Hebrews wore one, but I did not consider its origin or what it represented. At some point I began to wonder what was the origin of the Magen Daweed and what was its significance. I could not find any scriptural reference describing the symbol/icon commonly referred to as the Star or Shield of David. My research outside of the scriptures was no more satisfactory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David#Shield_form). I found that the symbol/icon was advocated by some as an ancient symbol having spiritual signifcance, Messianic implications, magical powers, etc. It was disparaged by others as pagan, satanic, occultic and a more recent invention. Who then, living or dead, could speak with authority about the Shield of David if not David himself. David does indeed speak of his shield in 2nd Samuel 22:3 and in Psalms 3:3, 28:7, 59:11, 119:4, and 144:2. David states unequivocally that YAH is his shield. With that understanding, I lost the desire to wear a so called Shield of David. YHWH is the true shield vs. an icon of disputed origin, an item of jewelry, a national/cultural symbol or even an implement of physical armor.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The Law of Primacy

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6)

In this proverb Solomon describes an application of the law of primacy. The law of primacy states that what is learned first is learned best. This principle is true for academic or cognitive learning as well as for learning skills and performance of tasks. You may have watched a televised interview of firefighters, policeman or soldiers following a crisis. When asked how they managed the crisis, quite often the response is something to the effect that, “we relied on our training” or “our training kicked in.” Hence another way to state the law of primacy is the first thing learned is what is remembered and relied on during times of stress. The law of primacy applies equally to learned attitudes and behaviors. In this respect, what we first learn from parents, teachers and others in positions of authority tends to produce an almost unshakable belief in what we have been taught. In proverbs 22:6, Solomon describes a positive consequence of the law of primacy, but there can be negative consequences as well.

It’s a challenge to unlearn error or to even reassess that which we’ve come to hold as truth. This is particularly difficult when our teachers are those we dependent upon, respect or hold in high esteem. A child taught by his parents that storks bring babies, bunny rabbits lay eggs and Santa Clause leaves gifts under the Christmas tree is not easily convinced otherwise. Nevertheless, the fact remains that our teachers (parents, religious leaders, educators, etc.) do teach erroneous concepts, principles and doctrines both unintentionally and intentionally. Erroneous teachings result from any number of causes including lack of knowledge, poor scholarship, flawed data, invalid assumptions and miscalculations. Erroneous teachings also arise from ego, pride, greed and hatred. Regardless of the source of the error or motivation of the teacher, the results of erroneous teachings can be disastrous and long term. Imagine what might happen to a commercial airliner experiencing engine failure if the pilots learned improper emergency procedures and were never quite able to unlearn them. Many are naïve or genuinely unaware of the erroneous teachings of their religious leaders and denominations. Others (being subject to the law of primacy) may be aware that a teaching is erroneous, but they cannot or will not unlearn them. The outcome is promulgation and perpetuation of the traditions of men, idolatry, superstition and false doctrine.

By no means am I promoting rebellion against legitimate authority. The word of God clearly and repeatedly instructs us to honor, respect and support legitimate authority.[i] The same word of God imposes a duty upon us to be subject to His authority more so than the authority of men.[ii] The word of God even warns that our understanding of this imperative is subject to test.[iii] Furthermore we are charged to prove all things.[iv]

Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The phrase, “prove all things” is centered between the admonitions to not despise prophecy and to embrace good while avoiding even the appearance of evil. To comply with such a charge, there must be a reliable standard against we can test prophecy, distinguish between good and evil and thereby prove all things (customs, traditions, doctrines etc.). At the time that Shaul (called Paul) Silvanus and Timothy wrote to the Thessalonians, the Hebrew Scriptures[v] were the scriptures that were given by inspiration of God, which are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness.[vi] The Hebrew Scriptures includes the Torah of Moses[vii] the perfect standard[viii] against which we can prove all things. In fact this is the standard specified in Deuteronomy 13:4 against which prophecy and dreams are to be tested. Even if a prophecy comes to pass, a false prophet/dreamer is exposed if his/her prophecy/dreams fail to line up with the Torah. Yahushua the Anointed Son of the Living God confirmed that the Torah is the standard against which we are to measure the teachings of religious leaders. Unfortunately many believe that Yahushua taught abrogation of the Torah. This is a classic case of the law of primacy. Those who hold this tradition are often ignorant of or only marginally familiar with the Torah. Yahushua did not teach abrogation of the Torah; on the contrary, he upheld the Torah while condemning deviation there from.[ix] The Torah was the basis upon which judges were to decide difficult cases and upon which the kings of Israel were to rule. The Torah was to be so important to the authority of the king that he was commanded to write himself a copy of the Torah.[x]

Yahushua who exemplified the Torah is to be esteemed greater than parents and teachers.[xi] Therefore we must walk his walk even if we were taught, have learned or became conditioned to do otherwise.[xii] The Spirit of Truth will enable us to overcome all things even the law of primacy.

But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)



[i] Exodus 20:12, Exodus 22:28, Deuteronomy 5:16, Deuteronomy 17 (particularly 17:8 - 17:13), Deuteronomy
18:15 – 18:22, Leviticus 19:32, Proverbs 5 (particularly 5:12 & 5:13), Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17, 1st Peter 2:13 – 15,
[ii] Mathew 15:1 – 9, Mark 7:1 – 13,
[iii] Deuteronomy 13:1-5
[iv] 1st Thessalonians 5:20 – 5:22
[v] Luke 24:25 - 45
[vi] 2nd Timothy 3:16
[vii] The true Hebraic understanding of "Torah" is "instructions" and "teachings" such as from a father to his children. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_torah.html
[viii] Psalm 19:7 – 11
[ix] To destroy or fulfill the law means, idiomatically, to give either a wrong interpretation or the correct interpretation thereof. The teaching and application of an erroneous interpretation of the law would have the effect of destroying the law while the teaching and application of the correct interpretation leads to fulfillment of the law (Matthew 5:17 – 20). In verses 21 – 48, Yahushua began to teach the correct interpretation and application of the Torah i.e. the spirit of the Torah.
[x] Deuteronomy 17:18 - 20
[xi] Mathew 10:34 - 37
[xii] John 4:3 – 26, Jeremiah 23:1 – 40, 16:19 and 13:23 Jeremiah 13:23 is more accurately translated, "Would the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [Then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to doing evil. As the beauty of a leopard's spots so the Ethiopian cherishes the complexion of his skin, which neither would willingly alter. Likewise, the pleasures of sin are not easily cast off by those who have become practiced therein.