The Curse of Ham
Genesis Chapter Nine
I spent much of this morning studying what has been called, “The Curse of Ham” in Genesis chapter nine. Nobody wants to touch this subject, yet it’s presence in Scripture is very clear. Was Ham, the father of Canaan and youngest son of Noah cursed for seeing his father drunk and naked and possibly have committing a shameful and sinful act with him? Let us let the text speak to us and forget about political, social or racial nuances, though tough to do for some. Many facts emerged from this study, shedding significant light on this controversial subject from various perspectives, the unifying one being the perspective of what the Bible clearly says.
First, a little history. Noah had only three sons, despite living for over 300 years after the flood. They were Shem, Ham and Japheth, Ham being the youngest. Satan had failed to corrupt Noah’s family, them being God’s only holdout in a world that was, “only evil continually.” As he always does, he sought the easiest target among Noah’s son’s: Ham. Descendants of Shem include the Jews, the Arabs, Syrians Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians. Descendants of Japheth include the Turks, Slavs, Greeks, Gog and Magog (Scythians). Descendants of Ham were the Phoenicians, Hittites, Sumerians, Egyptians and Ethiopians, the only Negro population in that group. Ham was inclined toward expressing his service through the material and serving the family of man through principally physical considerations, such as exploration, agriculture, engineering, textiles, paper and printing, while Shem’s inclination was more spiritual and Japheth’s more intellectual. Ham was far more closely impacted by God’s curse on the ground. Noah refers to Jehovah as, “the God of Shem,” and pronounces the blessing of, “enlarging the tents of Japheth” under the province of Shem. There was no blessing for Ham.
Moses says that “Noah, drank of the wine and was drunken and was uncovered within his tent” (within his house is more accurate) Gen. 9:21 Further … “Ham … saw the nakedness of his father.” The verb provides more detail and greater meaning: it is the Greek (Septuagint) with the meaning, “uncovered in a disgraceful sense, taken away, and in some cases exiled.” A key point is the part of the narrative that says that Ham (Canaan) “looked at” (“eido”) his father’s nakedness. This verb conveys exposure (“gunnotes”), or, “made a path to” his father, the implication clearly being a path of deviousness, disrespect, and almost certainly the sexual sin of sodomy. While not a certainty, this course of action draws strong support from the original language narrative, both the Greek of the Septuagint and the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Further, those nations and races that have descended from Ham, while roundly condemning homosexuality and imposing at times capital punishment for it’s practice have long used male on male sodomy as a means of humiliating a perceived inferior. This fits perfectly a likely motive for Ham having done this to his father based on his longstanding attitude of resentment of his authority. My personal belief leans toward Ham having animosity toward Noah for having refused many of Ham’s friends passage and safety on the ark. There is no doubt that Ham would be the one in the family to have many close friends among that population since he was hardly a spiritual person and had nobody else from which to choose friends in the pre-flood world.
Dr. Henry Morris, the great Creationist, points out that the verb indicates that Ham, “took delight” in what he saw, going to his brothers with the story in that very spirit. A further grammatical and linguistic study of the Hebrew verbs here tell us that this was certainly an expression of glee at his father’s moral failures and a rebellion against his authority that had quite possibly been simmering for several centuries.
We should point out here the great similarities between Noah’s moral failure and Adam’s. Both were shamed and disgraced by heir own behavior. Both were provided a covering by someone else. The curse on both of them had a historical impact on mankind. The curse on the ground impacted both of their descendants. Ham was more impacted by the ground curse than Shem and Japheth because of his tendency toward the physical pursuits, arts and sciences.
The text says that “Noah knew what his younger son had done unto him.” (Gen. 9:24) That is the word YAWDAH and means, “was aware, ascertained, comprehended and became knowledgeable concerning.” Does this seem to describe mere cognition? Over and over, this passage seems to speak to more than Noah inadvertently flashing Ham in a drunken stupor. Would a curse on one third of the human race come from a simple act of immodestly? That seems to be quite a stretch and highly disproportionate.
So because so many of the nations descended from Ham were not dark-skinned like those found on the African continent, it is unwise to say that the curse of Ham was a curse on Blacks. The Black Ethiopians were likely the first settlers on the continent of Africa, and the curse certainly affected them, but it also affected the Phoenicians, Hittites, Sumerians, Egyptians, none of which were of the Negro population group.
.
Jerry D. Kaifetz, Ph.D.
