The Bible Says That!? - The Curse of Ham
Click play below to listen as you read along
Intro
Today, I wanted to share a little bit about a huge misinterpretation of the Bible that was used for hundreds of years to enforce slavery here in the United States. Specifically, how slave owners, Christians, and ministers used a poor interpretation of Genesis 9 to legitimize and perpetuate slavery here in the US.
As a class, can we summarize the history of Slavery in the United States?
1700’s-1800’s
Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was elected
7 states broke to form the confederacy over the slavery issue
Emancipation Proclamation in 1863
13th Amendment in 1865 prohibited Slavery
The Civil War was fought over this issue
Splitting up families, most slaves in the north were free, while southern slaves: Worked as laborers, were sold, abused (physically and sexually), no civil rights, 3/5ths voting count, Jim Crow Laws (Had to be a male, property owner, literate, and afford a voting tax in order to vote) – all to keep the African American population from voting.
Discrimination even until the 1960’s when laws were changed to bring full and equal rights. “Separate but equal” worked only in theory and not reality. For some perspective, we put people on the moon before we could share a bathroom or a water faucet…
What do you know about slavery throughout the rest of human history across the whole world?
People often became slaves because they owed a debt – more like indentured servant hood
They had civil rights. They could have a family, the right to life, they were released once they paid off their debt, often very educated (most scribes were slaves), rights to their own income. They, did a lot of “grunt work” however, labor slaves were valued as only the rich could afford to own a slave.
A Bad Biblical Interpretation
For centuries here in the USA, people had used the Bible to justify slavery and we’re going to look at how and why. Specifically, they used what is known as the “Curse of Ham” as the justification for why American landowners and citizens could and should enforce slavery of the African American people.
Essentially, the argument went as such:
Since Noah cursed Ham because of what Ham did to his father – an implied evil sexual act against his father – Not only is Ham cursed, but his entire lineage is cursed as well. The lineage of Ham are the African people and they are destined to “be the slave of Japheth” and their descendants – the Caucasian European people. Furthermore, the conquest of the promised land only further justifies God’s displeasure with the Canaanite descendants and they were thus to be punished for their sin as well – always and forever. Not only is this descriptive, but here God is prescribing that this be a law always and forever, Amen.
This was used extensively and quoted often to support the God given justification behind slavery in the USA.
It also is found elsewhere in history:
The Muslim conquest in the 700’s in north Africa basically created a theme of “become Muslim or become slaves.” This shows that even by this time, the interpretation of slavery of the African people’s was even a popular belief within Islam’s history.
In the 1400’s Spanish and Portuguese people were selling African slaves to the America’s. They even went as far as to say that they were doing the African people a favor by bringing “civilization and Christianity” to these people.
Some Preachers were preaching sermons in the defense of USA slavery. A Bible printed in 1917 (Moody-Scofield Bible) said that based on Genesis 9 – the people of Japheth were: “enlarged races” Government, science, and art are and have been Japhetic. The people of Shem is where the Israelite people –and Christ himself – came from. While the people of Ham “will descend an inferior and servile posterity.” (Gen 9:24-25)
We’re going to go step by step and dismantle this line of thinking and examine what the Bible does and does not say about this issue.
Read Genesis 9:20-27 and Judges 1:28-30
Who are the three sons of Noah? – Shem, Ham, Japheth
Who is the one cursed in this story? – Canaan (The Son of Ham)
These two stories are foundational for the justification of slavery in the USA. However, there are 4 major exegetical moves that were made in order to reach the conclusion that slavery is justified.
The Four Exegetical Moves
First, Interpreters state that Ham is the one who was cursed, not Canaan, despite the biblical text explicitly stating “Cursed be Canaan” and “May Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
What is wrong with this exegetical leap? Take a look at the text itself.
Early biblical interpreters like: Ben Sira, Augustine, Origin, Ambrose, and Hippolitus made this switch because they felt it inappropriate to blame Canaan for something he didn’t do – Canaan was innocent. So they placed the blame and the curse on Ham himself.
Second, the interpretive leap was made that Ham was the Ancestor of ALL of the people of Africa.
Genesis 10:6 lists the sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put (Ethiopia), and Canaan (Lybia).
A big reason this leap was made was because of Ham’s name. People who knew Hebrew looked at Ham’s name and decided that it sounded a lot like the Hebrew word for “warm.” Based on this, they reasoned that because Africa was hot/warmer than Israel, it would make sense that Ham’s name meant “Hot/warm.” However, this is incorrect: This is an etymological mistake of Ham’s name. It should in fact be understood as either an unknown name meaning to us today, or it is closer to “Kinsman” or “protector” rather than “hot.”
Now although the early church fathers did not endorse a later racialized view of people groups, they did often moralize Ham’s behavior to explain why some nations in Israel’s History (Egypt or the Canaanite people) were portrayed as sinful in the Biblical narrative.
Third, the leap was made that the “curse” mentioned in this passage was dark skin.
This came from an interpretation in the Midrash (Rabbinic teachings) during the 300’s CE. No where is the description of the “Curse” ever described as having dark skin. Possibly in line with the line of thinking of “Well the people in Africa all are from Ham, and they all have dark skin, therefore the curse must be dark skin,” kind of thing.
Origin – an early Church father from Egypt – argues for this as well.
What is wrong with this exegetical leap?
Fourth, it assumes the curse requires eternal slavery.
The biblical text states that Canaan will be a slave to Ham’s brothers.
What is wrong with this exegetical leap?
However, people have assumed that this applies to ALL of the descendants of Ham and Canaan.
The argument then goes that “Thus, all of the people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Lybia should be eternal slaves to the descendants of Japheth.” By extension – all of Africa falls into this category.
It’s for these reasons that people justified slavery based on the Bible.
Take Away
What are your thoughts on the four interpretive moves made by early interpreters?
What is wrong with their observations and assumptions?
Why do you think people in the United States at the time would make such claims based on the biblical text?
How has this changed your understanding of USA slavery vs slavery elsewhere in history?
How does this speak to the importance of making sure we understand our Bibles correctly.