by Dr. H.C. Felder
Throughout the era of the Atlantic slave trade, the Bible was used to justify slavery in America. Biblical passages were taken out of context and applied in any way the interpreter wanted. One popular passage, known as The Curse of Ham, was supposed to justify slavery into perpetuity. The problem is that the passage in no way provided the support the slavers wanted. This post examines how this passage was used to support slavery and why both the interpretation and its implementation were wrong.
Historical Slavers’ Position
Let’s begin by looking at the biblical account in Genesis 9, verses 20-27:
Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father, and their faces were turned away so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said,
“Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers.” He also said,
“Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, And may he live in the tents of Shem; And may Canaan be his servant.”
Proponents of slavery wrote that this passage was God’s blessing upon the enslavement of Africans. God, through Noah, had cursed the offspring of Ham, who would go on to be the father of the African nations. Japheth would populate the European nations while Shem populated the nations of what is now the Middle East. This was considered evidence that God intended for the Africans to serve Europeans, as . the three sons were thought to represent the three different races: Japheth was white, Shem was Asian, and Ham was black. Therefore, the implication was that this curse was God-ordained: The black Africans should serve the white Europeans, which included the Americans.
This belief can be seen in the writings of early Christians. As an example, let’s look at a letter from an Ohio clergy member on the subject of slavery in 1863: “It appears, from Genesis ix, 25, 26, and 27, that when there was but one family on the face of the earth, a part of that family was doomed, by the father Noah, to become slaves to the others. That part was the posterity of Ham, from whom, it is supposed, sprung the Africans.”(1)
We find another example in the once-popular Scofield Reference Bible by theologian, minister, and writer C.I Scofield, where Scofield commented regarding Gen. 9:25: “The devoted nations, which God destroyed before Israel, were descended from Canaan: and so were the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, who were at length subjugated with dreadful destruction by the Greeks and Romans. The Africans, who have been bought and sold like beasts, were also his posterity” (italics mine).(2) Here we see this assumption that Japheth and his descendants were white while Ham and his descendants were black and doomed to a life of servitude due to Noah’s curse.
Others have gone even further, arguing that both black skin and slavery were the result of Noah’s curse. For instance, the Babylonian Talmud states that “the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny.”(3) So, both black skin and slavery were the result of Noah’s curse.
Christian Response
We will now examine this passage in its proper grammatical and historical context.
Ham Was Not Cursed
It is essential to note in verse 25 that this curse was aimed at Canaan, Ham’s son—not at Ham. Ham’s descendants were Put, Egypt, Cush, and Canaan. Geographically, Put is in Northern Africa, in the area of present-day Libya. Egypt is also in Northern Africa. Canaan went on to populate the area where Israel exists today. The area of the Canaanites had no connection to the Atlantic slave trade. Cush corresponds to present-day Egypt, Sudan, and northern Ethiopia.(4) It is from the area of Cush that most slaves came during the Atlantic slave trade.
Not only was Cush not cursed, but the Cushites are often mentioned favorably in the Bible. They would become a mighty kingdom. They were famous archers and warriors. They were so skilled that their bowmen were often employed as mercenaries throughout the Greek world and served in the armies of Egypt, Rome, and Greece, to name a few.(5) Scripture records that they even served in the army of King David (2 Sam. 18:19-33).
The Curse Has Nothing To Do with Race
Nowhere in the Genesis 9 passage is race mentioned. Race is not a biblical concept. God dealt with nations and ethnicities, not with skin color. Race is a social construct that was invented in the 1600s to justify slavery. Reading race into any biblical passage is an anachronism.
What is the difference between race and ethnicity? (6) Merriam-Webster.com explains that race refers to a group of people that share the same outward physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to one’s nationality, heritage, and ancestry. The Bible often refers to people by their ethnicity, but never by their race.
In the case of Noah and his sons, one thing is clear: They were all of the same ethnicity. since Noah's sons all had the same mother and father. The idea that Noah had one son who was black, another son who was white, and another son who was brown (or Asian in some accounts) simply makes no sense. The differences in skin color would come later as people migrated to different parts of the world and adapted to their environment. Those with skin characteristics compatible with their new environment would thrive and eventually dominate their geographical region.
There is an important reason that Noah could not have cursed Ham. God blesses Ham in the very first verse of Genesis 9: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’” (Gen. 9:1 NASB; italics mine). Noah could not curse what God had blessed.
The Curse Only Applied to Canaan and His Descendants
As mentioned above, the curse was applied to Canaan, who had no connection to Africa. The descendants of Canaan occupied the land that is currently known as Israel. There is no way the curse could have applied to the Atlantic slave trade.
In the Old Testament, we find that the inhabitants of Canaan had turned away from God, and, in retribution, God removed them from the land because of their sin. It certainly had nothing to do with their skin color. After giving the Israelites a list of things they should not do, God said this in Lev. 18:24-27:
‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these things the nations which I am driving out from you have become defiled. 25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and you shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the stranger who resides among you 27 (for the people of the land who were there before you did all these abominations, and the land has become defiled),
God fulfilled this prophecy by removing the Canaanites for their sinful practices and giving it to the Israelites in what the Bible calls The Promised Land.
People will use whatever authority they can to justify their behavior. During slavery, the Bible was one such authority. Proponents of slavery tried to convince themselves that they were following God’s plan to justify their actions in God’s sight. But they were not. The curse of Ham had no connection to Ham and, therefore, no connection to Africa. The prophecy was fulfilled when Israel invaded the Land of Canaan and subjected the Canaanites to forced labor. This passage did not condone or justify the Atlantic slave trade, and people were wrong to interpret it otherwise.
1. James Smylie, A Review of a Letter, from the Presbytery of Chillicothe, to the Presbytery of Mississippi, on the Subject of Slavery (Woodville: Wm. A. Norris and Co., 1836):16, quoted in Haynes, Noah’s Curse, 1053.
2. “Genesis 9:25 - Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Bible Concordance Online,” Bible Study Tools, accessed July 2, 2024. https://www.biblestudytools.com/concordances/treasury-of-scripture-knowledge/genesis-9-25.html.
3. Gene Rice, “The Curse that Never Was [Genesis 9:18–27]” Journal of Religious Thought 29 (1972): 11–12.
4. H.C. Felder, The African American Guide to the Bible, Christian Faith Publishing, Inc,144.
5. Ibid. 145.
6. “The Difference Between ‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity,” www.meriam-webster.com, accessed July 1, 2021, https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/difference-between-race-and-ethnicity.