14 comments

1. Could we avoid the baggage of kinism just by telling our kids to marry someone that is compatible? But they will ask what that means…so we would have to use more big words and abstract concepts to avoid any reference to race. If Christians in other parts of world got to listen in, they would laugh and say, Why do you make it so complicated? Here’s what I told my son when he started looking for a wife:

   “Son, our tribe has always had these talents and these weaknesses. Your future kids will get them all from you. But our tribe has generations of wisdom to help develop our strengths and deal with the weaknesses. If you marry someone outside our tribe, she won’t understand what makes us different. The girl might think our strengths are bad things, and our weaknesses are good things. Or she might get really frustrated with the problems we’ve always had and make them worse.
   Your kids will also inherit strengths from her that you won’t understand, and inherit weaknesses from her that our tribe has never had to deal with. So you and her will always be fighting, and the kids will grow up confused and never become what they could be. Our tribe and her tribe won’t know what to do with them, so your kids will feel like they don’t belong to either one, because they will have a set of strengths/weaknesses that differs from the strengths/weaknesses of their father’s tribe and their mother’s tribe.
   Even if you find a girl who does understand us, her family probably won’t. Your future kids deserve to have aunts, uncles, and grandparents on both sides of the family who will understand their inherited traits, talents and weaknesses. If you marry a girl from our tribe, your kids will have that. Also, at family re-unions, there will be less arguing and fighting, because our tribe has its own way of talking, joking, fixing problems, and getting along, and we understand that way better than any other tribe. So we think you should look for a wife from our tribe first. If you cant find anyone, look for someone in another tribe that’s similar to ours.”

   Is there anything unchristian about this? I’d be glad to hear the opinion of African Americans…i might have learned all this from one of them. Glen Loury? Can’t remember

   Reply ↓

   • This is nature trumping grace. Brother, this is kinism. You’ve just said that it doesn’t matter whether a future spouse is united to Christ and therefore a sister as much whether a future spouse belongs to the same tribe/kin. You’ve just said that, in Christ, there is Jew, Greek, etc. You’ve turned the New Testament ethic on its head.

     Postmillennialism is a poor explanation of Scripture and without warrant in Scripture as understood by the New Testament. Even if true, it’s no warrant for kinism.

     The CRC was right about kinism. It’s unbiblical and ungodly.

     Reply ↓

2. Michael,
   They’re not reacting against CRT in the church, they are reacting against they are constantly seeing and hearing at school, work, social media and movies. It is all about how one race is more evil than the rest..specifically the straight white male

   Reply ↓

   • In their reaction, however, they’ve become the very thing they despise! The neo-racists, neo-Nazis, Kinists etc. are doing the very same thing they hate in the radical left: adopting a victim narrative and adopting racialist politics.

     The answer to leftist racism is not more racism.

     Reply ↓

     • I tell them the same thing, but they want answers…They are growing up in a world that is the total opposite of the civil rights era. They get graphs and data put in front of them at school and college, showing that persons of color have been poorer, sicker, weaker no matter where they live in the world, and that this systemic racism has been going on for centuries. They are told all the time it is all their white ancestors fault, and themselves too somehow.
       They hear this constantly… one history class began with the segregated south and Emmitt Till. They spent half the semester in it, then moved on to another example of oppression. As if history begins and ends with racism. They want to know, is it really all our fault? If not, why all the inequality between white and black/POC? If everyone is equal, every ethnic group should be equal in wealth, health, power, military strength, technology, right? But Africa has never gotten close to the west in any of these areas, so everyone from Africa must be the victim of systemic oppression, right?

       The more leftist the nation the worse CRT is. My kids can tell you about race based schools, scholarships, subsidies, race based seats in Parliament…all things that exclude whites.
       My kids and their friends want to know…why is this happening? Its happening where whites were in the majority, so an older generation of whites must have been fine with the policies that made it happen. And most of that generation would say they were Christian. Did something go wrong with their theology?

       Reply ↓

       • Joshua,

         I understand that there is a reaction to DEI and to the unjust vilification of whole people groups (e.g., people being made to confess to crimes they haven’t committed and being singled out for being white). That reaction was predicted but the left simply would not listen.

         The ignorance of the radical left doesn’t justify an opposite and equally stupid reaction, especially by Christians.

         Persons of color have suffered great injustices at the hands of the white majority in many places. This is a historical fact and it wasn’t all that long ago that we realized it and concretely began to end that injustice. The consequences of centuries of abuse live on. In my lifetime there were whites only water fountains. De facto segreation is still in effect. I spoke recently to a realtor who confirmed that, despite laws forbidding it, redlining is still a fact in real estate practices even in a very “blue” (left) state like California. Black people are discouraged from buy property in certain areas or aren’t told that it is available.

         When a black man enters a store, security looks at him differently than it looks at me as a white man. That’s a fact. White people are not aware of it because it doesn’t directly affect them but ask a black man what it’s like to walk into a store and to be followed by security.

         Injustices large and small provoked a reaction and have given rise to what a number of black leaders have called a “grievance industry,” which exacerbates the problem. President Obama arguably did more damage than good in highlighting and even fostering division for the sake of political success and expediency. We are arguably in a worse place now than we were 30 years ago.

         There is a great lot of virtue signaling going on in schools and the history classes have been much affected by Marxist theories (e.g., Howard Zinn) and so they interpret history as being about oppressors and oppression and that becomes the master narrative, which tilts instruction in the ways you mention but when I was in school I had to learn about Emmett Till on my own. He wasn’t mentioned at all. Pendulums swing.

         The current momentum of the social pendulum isn’t grounds for ignorance and racism and especially not by Christians.

         All Reformed Christians, of all ethnic backgrounds, take comfort in the confession of Heidelberg Catechism 27 and 28:

         27. What do you understand by the providence of God?

         The almighty, everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by his hand, he upholds heaven and earth with all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, meat and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, indeed, all things come not by chance, but by his Fatherly hand.

         28. What does it profit us to know that God created, and by his providence upholds all things?

         That we may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and for what is future have good confidence in our faithful God and Father, that no creature shall separate us from his love, since all creatures are so in his hand, that without his will they cannot so much as move.

         Our calling is to love our neighbors, work diligently to provide for ourselves and to be able to help our brothers and sisters (all all ethnicities) when they are in need.

         The politics of victimhood, finding ways in which we have been “victimized” and then exploiting that for political advantage, are inappropriate for Christians of all ethnicities.

         Reply ↓

3. Thanks for your reply. Can you point me to a sound and thorough exegesis of Gen. 9.25-27?

   The objections to Norris’ interpretation are numerous. Like, How can Noah be talking about Canaan exclusively…Canaanites were suppsed to be destroyed, not enslaved…Israel would be punished if they enslaved them rather than destroyed them. And, Canaan is called a servant to his brothers (not masters), so it implies some kind of reconciliation yet continued subjection. And, Redemptive blessings on people lifts them up morally, and eventually this lifts them up politically and economically too, so Noah is predicting more than redemptive history. Eg, Christianity is more influential in america than rest of the world, so pro life movement is much stronger, along with stronger economy and military.

   etc, etc

   Really need long, thorough answers to these, or more young white men will become neo-Nazis. I’m a middle aged man, worried about what my sons and their friends could fall into. A lot of them in school and at work feel like their white male identity is a liability. If this worsens, they will be drawn to men like Ketcham…if they arent already.

   Reply ↓

   • Joshua,

     The racist interpretation of “the Curse of Ham,” is as Chad Bird says, “absurd.” It has nothing to do with the text. It’s like making the Bible talk about jet travel. It simply doesn’t do that. The Bible is not a wax nose to be twisted wherever one will.

     Here are some refutations of the racist “Curse of Ham” theory:

     Chad Bird on the Curse of Ham

     Calvin’s interpretation of the text is typical:

     And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen. 9:25.

     It is strange that Noah curses his grandson and passes over in silence Ham who committed the crime. The Jews give God’s favor as the reason and say that God had so greatly honored Ham that the curse was shifted to his son. But that is a foolish conjecture. I am sure that the punishment was transferred to posterity to make its severity all the more obvious; for God was giving clear testimony that he did not consider the punishment of one man alone to be sufficient, and that therefore the curse had to include his descendants and continue in force through the ages. Meanwhile Ham himself was certainly not exempted; God made his judgment heavier by including his son with him.

     Now another question arises. Why did God single out from among Ham’s many sons one man in particular for the blow? But here we must not allow too much range to our curiosity. We should keep in mind, it is not without reason that the judgments of God are called an unfathomable abyss. It is not fitting that God, before whose tribunal we must all finally stand, be subjected to our judgment—or rather to our foolish temerity. God chooses as he pleases some, to make them examples of his grace and long-suffering; he destines others for a different purpose, to be proofs of his anger and severity. Here human minds are blind; yet each one of us, knowing his own failure, should learn to praise God’s justice rather than hurl himself by insane audacity into the deep abyss.
     The curse of God included the whole seed of Ham. But he singled out the Canaanites by name as cursed above all others. We know that this judgment was from God, for it was afterwards validated by the event. Noah was a man and did not know what was to happen to the Canaanites; but in such obscure and hidden matters he spoke as the Spirit directed his tongue.

     There is still another difficulty. The Scripture teaches that the sins of men are punished to the third and fourth generation; and yet [our text] seems to depict the punishment of God’s wrath as reaching to ten generations. I answer: Scripture does not prescribe a rule which God himself may not transgress, as though he were bound not to punish beyond four generations. We must see grace and punishment as combined and so understand that, while God justly punishes our crimes, he is still more inclined to mercy. Meanwhile, let us admit that he is free to extend punishment as far as it seems good to him.

     Servant of servants. This Hebrew phrase means that Canaan will be the lowest among slaves, or that his situation will be worse than common slavery. But does not the lightning bolt of this stern and terrible prophecy seem a harmless joke, since the Canaanites were [at the time it was written] outstanding, in power, riches, and resources? Where then was their slavery? I answer: First, God’s threats need not be fulfilled immediately; but they are never empty or ineffective; second, God’s judgments are not always visible to our eyes or recognizable by our physical senses. The Canaanites threw off the yoke of slavery which was divinely imposed upon them and even grasped an empire for themselves. But although they had their time of arrogance, they were never in God’s sight free.

     In the same way, when the faithful are unjustly oppressed and tyrannically harassed by the wicked, their spiritual liberty before God is not destroyed. God promised to his servant Abraham dominion over the land of Canaan, and condemned the Canaanites to destruction. We must be satisfied with this as proof of God’s justice.
     One more point. The pope asserts that he utters prophecies. Well, so did Caiaphas. I do not wish to appear to deny all his claims; and I freely admit that the title1 with which he adorns himself was dictated by the Holy Spirit. May he like Canaan become servant of servants.

     1 The title of the pope, “Pius Episcopus, servus servorum Dei,” has been used since the time of Gregory the Great, in the sixth century. It is the regular heading of papal bulls at the present time.

     Joseph Haroutunian and Louise Pettibone Smith, Calvin: Commentaries (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958), 275–76.

     Brakel:

     However, Noah and his wife, together with his three sons and their wives, as well as a representation of every living species, were preserved alive in the ark, by which they were saved. Noah planted a vineyard and became drunk—either because of his great desire for wine which he had not drunk in a long time, or because he had become unaccustomed to wine and was affected by it that much more quickly, or because the wine was stronger than the wine he had drunk previously. The fact is that at one time he became drunk and laid down to sleep. Due to stirring in his sleep, his covering was removed, and he lay there naked. When his son Ham entered the tent and saw his father’s nakedness, he went out and informed both his brothers. While approaching their father backward, they took a covering and spread it over him. Ham’s sin was not merely in the act of seeing, for if in moving about he had unexpectedly seen this and had quickly departed, he would not have sinned and brought such a curse upon himself. Rather, while seeing this, something occurred which amounted to mockery: Either Ham went so far as to mock with his father, or his son Canaan, seeing his grandfather lying there naked, paused and mocked with him. In fact, the curse was not pronounced upon the person of Ham and his entire posterity, but upon his son Canaan. It could be that he had mocked, or that Ham was punished in his child—this being the severest punishment for a father. It could also be that they were both guilty, for Shem and Japheth received a blessing of their father, whereas Ham was passed by.

     Ham’s genealogy is placed side by side with those of Japheth and Shem. In this genealogy Nimrod is mentioned, of whom it is said, “He was a mighty hunter before the LORD” (Gen. 10:9a). This can be interpreted as a description of an ungodly man, being a terrible tyrant who cared neither for God nor man. It could also be a description of a God-fearing man, being desirous to provide a safe shelter for people—or more particularly, who killed and drove away the animals of prey for the benefit of his family. Wild animals had multiplied greatly and prevented people from living quietly and peacefully. Thus, it was not the timid hare or the quickly-frightened deer which he hunted, but rather lions, bears, tigers, wolves, and similar animals of prey. This required courage and, being accompanied with danger, caused him to flee to God for refuge, and with His help, overcame the wild beasts, thereby creating a safe residence for people.

     These people, who intended to make a name for themselves by building a high tower and erecting a beacon to prevent their dispersion, were prevented in doing so by having their language confounded—and were thus dispersed over the entire face of the earth. These are the particulars of what has been recorded for us concerning the first two thousand years. Then Moses turns to Abraham, as the church was restricted thereafter to his family only.

     Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel R. Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout, vol. 4 (Reformation Heritage Books, 1995), 376–377.

     Vos, in his Biblical Theology discusses this passage relative to the development of redemptive history.

     These prophecies are in the case of Canaan (Ham) a curse, in the case of Japhet and Shem a blessing. The words must be regarded throughout as words of prophecy. Even paganism ascribes to such utterances a real influence to affect the persons concerned. This influence was conceived as magical, but in Scripture this is raised to the plane of inspired prophecy. Such prophecies in this early period represent the high-water mark of the advancing tide of revelation.

     It will be observed, that the basis for the distinction between cursing and blessing lay in the ethical sphere. The shameless sensuality of Ham, the modesty of Japhet and Shem, marked a difference in common morality. Nevertheless it shaped in a most far-reaching manner the whole subsequent course of redemptive history. The supernatural process of redemption remains in contact with the natural development of the race. These influential traits were typical traits. They were the source of great racial dispositions. The event took place at a critical juncture where no significant event could fail to influence history for ages to come. The Old Testament recognizes that among the Canaanites the same type of sin here cursed was the dominating trait of evil. The descriptions given in the Pentateuch leave no doubt as to this [cp. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 12:29–32]. Even among the ancients outside of Israel (Japhetites) the sensual depravity in sexual life of Phoenicians, and Carthaginians in particular, had become proverbial.

     The question has been raised why, instead of Ham, who had committed the sin, Canaan his son is cursed. Some assume that Ham was the youngest son of Noah, and Canaan the youngest son of Ham. The underlying principle would then be that Ham is punished in that son who sustains the same relation to him as he sustained to Noah. This would bring out the fact of its being a sin committed against his father. There would be nothing in this against the Old Testament law of retribution, for the Old Testament is not in such points so morbidly individualistic as we are apt to be. Especially in the earlier part of Old Testament revelation the principle of generic solidarity is stressed [cp. Ex. 20:5, 6, where the operation of the rule both in malam and in bonam partem is affirmed]. Later revelation, especially in Ezekiel, brought the closer working out of the problem involved.
     However, the facts of the genealogical relationship above assumed are subject to doubt. The usual sequence in which the names of Noah’s sons are given is Shem, Ham and Japhet, which indicates that Ham occupied the middle place. Nor is there any evidence for Canaan having been the youngest son of Ham. ‘Youngest son’ in the Revised Version, vs. 24, is not conclusive, because the Hebrew word can be comparative as well as superlative, which would yield ‘younger son’ (as in R.V. margin), assigning to Ham the middle place in the triad. Under these circumstances it is best to adopt a modified form of the view proposed, and to say: Ham was punished in one of his sons because he had sinned against his father, and he was punished in that particular son, because Canaan most strongly reproduced Ham’s sensual character. It should be noticed that not all the descendants of Ham are cursed but only the Canaanites; the others receive neither curse nor blessing.

     Finally we must in passing touch upon the critical solution of the problem in hand. The divisive critics say that in the original version of the story the three sons of Noah were Shem, Japhet, and Canaan, and that this was afterwards changed into the present enumeration. This, of course, requires the deletion of the words ‘Ham the father of’ in vs. 22, and further of the words ‘Ham is the father of Canaan’ in vs. 18. These words were subsequently added, according to this theory, when the family relationships of Noah were altered. The curse upon Canaan consists in his being degraded to servitude to his brethren. This recurs as a refrain in the sequel to the blessings of Japhet and Shem.

     The second member of the prophecy relates to Shem. Here the use of the name Jehovah seems significant. In point of fact this name contains in itself the blessing bestowed upon Shem. It lies in this, that God in the capacity of Jehovah, the God of redemption, gives Himself to this part of the race for religious possession and enjoyment. It is a berith-formula, meaning far more than that the Shemites will worship Jehovah. This is the first time in Scripture that God is called the God of some particular group of mankind. It is so extraordinary a thing as to inspire the patriarch to the utterance of a doxology: ‘Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem’. Resolved into its explicit meaning it would read: ‘Blessed be Jehovah, because He is willing to be the God of Shem.’
     The third member of the prophecy is of more uncertain interpretation. It reads: ‘God enlarge Japhet, and let him live in the tents of Shem’. One point of uncertainty is the meaning of the verb (yapht, a play on the sound of the name Japhet). Is this to be taken locally or metaphorically? The former makes it refer to extension of territory, the latter understands it of enlargement, i.e. increase of prosperity. A second point of uncertainty relates to the question, who is the subject of the clause ‘let him dwell’. Is this meant of God or of Japhet? The two questions are interlinked. If the subject of the second clause be Japhet, then it is but natural to understand the first clause of enlargement of territory. To dwell in the tents of some tribe or people is a common way for describing conquest of one tribe by another. For Japhet to dwell in the tents of Shem implies conquest of Shemitic territory by Japhetites. On the other hand, if ‘him’ in ‘let him dwell’ relates to God, then we should have to paraphrase as follows: May God give large prosperity to Japhet, but let Him bestow upon Shem what far transcends all such temporal blessedness, let Him (i.e. God) dwell in the tents of Shem. In that case a contrast is drawn between the objective gifts bestowed upon the Japhetites, and the personal self-communication of God upon the Shemites. The territorial rendering of ‘enlarge’ carrying with it the reference of ‘him’ to Japhet deserves the preference. The use of the name Elohim favours it, since it is not of Elohim but of Jehovah that such a gracious indwelling is predicated. Understanding it of Japhetites overrunning Shemitic lands, we should not, however, allegorize the statement, as though a spiritual dwelling together between Shemites and Japhetites were referred to. A real political conquest is intended. But ultimately such physical conquest will have for its result the coming of a religious blessing to Japhet. Occupying the tents of Shem he will find the God of Shem, the God of redemption and of revelation, there. The prophecy, both in its proximate political import and as to its ultimate spiritual consequences, was fulfilled through the subjugating of Shemitic territory by the Greeks and Romans. For this blessing became one of the most potent factors in the spread of the true religion over the earth. Delitzsch strikingly remarks: ‘We are all Japhetites dwelling in the tents of Shem’.

     Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003), 56–59.

     Keil & Delitzsch:

     Gen. 9:18–29. The second occurrence in the life of Noah after the flood exhibited the germs of the future development of the human race in a threefold direction, as manifested in the characters of his three sons. As all the families and races of man descend from them, their names are repeated in v. 18; and in prospective allusion to what follows, it is added that “Ham was the father of Canaan.” From these three “the earth (the earth’s population) spread itself out.” “The earth” is used for the population of the earth, as in Gen. 10:25 and 11:1, and just as lands or cities are frequently substituted for their inhabitants. נָפְצָה: probably Niphal for נָפֹצָה, from פּוּץ to scatter (Gen. 11:4), to spread out. “And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard.” As אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה cannot be the predicate of the sentence, on account of the article, but must be in apposition to Noah, וַיִטַּע and וַיָּחֶל must be combined in the sense of “began to plant” (Ges. § 142, 3). The writer does not mean to affirm that Noah resumed his agricultural operations after the flood, but that as a husbandman he began to cultivate the vine; because it was this which furnished the occasion for the manifestation of that diversity in the character of his sons, which was so eventful in its consequences in relation to the future history of their descendants. In ignorance of the fiery nature of wine, Noah drank and was drunken, and uncovered himself in his tent (v. 21). Although excuse may be made for this drunkenness, the words of Luther are still true: “Qui excusant patriarcham, volentes hanc consolationem, quam Spiritus S. ecclesiis necessariam judicavit, abjuciunt, quod scilicen etiam summi sancti aliquando labuntur.” This trifling fall served to display the hearts of his sons. Ham saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Not content with finding pleasure himself in his father’s shame, “nunquam enim vino victum patrem filius resisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet” (Luther), he just proclaimed his disgraceful pleasure to his brethren, and thus exhibited his shameless sensuality. The brothers, on the contrary, with reverential modesty covered their father with a garment (הַשִּׂמְלָה the garment, which was at hand), walking backwards that they might not see his nakedness (v. 23), and thus manifesting their childlike reverence as truly as their refined purity and modesty. For this they receive their father’s blessing, whereas Ham reaped for his son Canaan the patriarch’s curse. In v. 24 Ham is called בְּנֹו הַקָּטָן “his (Noah’s) little son,” and it is questionable whether the adjective is to be taken as comparative in the sense of “the younger,” or as superlative, meaning “the youngest.” Neither grammar nor the usage of the language will enable us to decide. For in 1 Sam. 17:14, where David is contrasted with his brothers, the word means not the youngest of the four, but the younger by the side of the three elder, just as in Gen. 1:16 the sun is called “the great” light, and the moon “the little” light, not to show that the sun is the greatest and the moon the least of all lights, but that the moon is the smaller of the two. If, on the other hand, on the ground of 1 Sam. 16:11, where “the little one” undoubtedly means the youngest of all, any one would press the superlative force here, he must be prepared, in order to be consistent, to do the same with haggadol, “the great one,” in Gen. 10:21, which would lead to this discrepancy, that in the verse before us Ham is called Noah’s youngest son, and in Gen. 10:21 Shem is called Japhet’s oldest brother, and thus implicite Ham is described as older than Japhet. If we do not wish lightly to introduce a discrepancy into the text of these two chapters, no other course is open than to follow the LXX, Vulg. and others, and take “the little” here and “the great” in Gen. 10:21 as used in a comparative sense, Ham being represented here as Noah’s younger son, and Shem in Gen. 10:21 as Japhet’s elder brother. Consequently the order in which the three names stand is also an indication of their relative ages. And this is not only the simplest and readiest assumption, but is even confirmed by Gen. 10, though the order is inverted there, Japhet being mentioned first, then Ham, and Shem last; and it is also in harmony with the chronological datum in Gen. 11:10, as compared with Gen. 5:32 (vid., Gen. 11:10).
     To understand the words of Noah with reference to his sons (vv. 25–27), we must bear in mind, on the one hand, that as the moral nature of the patriarch was transmitted by generation to his descendants, so the diversities of character in the sons of Noah foreshadowed diversities in the moral inclinations of the tribes of which they were the head; and on the other hand, that Noah, through the Spirit and power of that God with whom he walked, discerned in the moral nature of his sons, and the different tendencies which they already displayed, the germinal commencement of the future course of their posterity, and uttered words of blessing and of curse, which were prophetic of the history of the tribes that descended from them. In the sin of Ham “there lies the great stain of the whole Hamitic race, whose chief characteristic is sexual sin” (Ziegler); and the curse which Noah pronounced upon this sin still rests upon the race. It was not Ham who was cursed, however, but his son Canaan. Ham had sinned against his father, and he was punished in his son. But the reason why Canaan was the only son named, is not to be found in the fact that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham, and Ham the youngest son of Noah, as Hofmann supposes. The latter is not an established fact; and the purely external circumstance, that Canaan had the misfortune to be the youngest son, could not be a just reason for cursing him alone. The real reason must either lie in the fact that Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father’s impiety and sin, or else be sought in the name Canaan, in which Noah discerned, through the gift of prophecy, a significant omen; a supposition decidedly favoured by the analogy of the blessing pronounced upon Japhet, which is also founded upon the name. Canaan does not signify lowland, nor was it transferred, as many maintain, from the land to its inhabitants; it was first of all the name of the father of the tribe, from whom it was transferred to his descendants, and eventually to the land of which they took possession. The meaning of Canaan is “the submissive one,” from כָּנַע to stoop or submit, Hiphil, to bend or subjugate (Deut. 9:3; Judg. 4:23, etc.). “Ham gave his son the name from the obedience which he required, though he did not render it himself. The son was to be the servant (for the name points to servile obedience) of a father who was as tyrannical towards those beneath him, as he was refractory towards those above. The father, when he gave him the name, thought only of submission to his own commands. But the secret providence of God, which rules in all such things, had a different submission in view” (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. 28, transl.). “Servant of servants (i.e., the lowest of slaves, vid., Ewald, § 313) let him become to his brethren.” Although this curse was expressly pronounced upon Canaan alone, the fact that Ham had no share in Noah’s blessing, either for himself or his other sons, was a sufficient proof that his whole family was included by implication in the curse, even if it was to fall chiefly upon Canaan. And history confirms the supposition. The Canaanites were partly exterminated, and partly subjected to the lowest form of slavery, by the Israelites, who belonged to the family of Shem; and those who still remained were reduced by Solomon to the same condition (1 Kings 9:20, 21). The Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans; and the remainder of the Hamitic tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the negroes, for example, and other African tribes, beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery.
     Gen. 9:26. In contrast with the curse, the blessings upon Shem and Japhet are introduced with a fresh “and he said,” whilst Canaan’s servitude comes in like a refrain and is mentioned in connection with both his brethren: Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem, and let Canaan be servant to them.” Instead of wishing good to Shem, Noah praises the God of Shem, just as Moses in Deut. 33:20, instead of blessing Gad, blesses Him “that enlargeth Gad,” and points out the nature of the good which he is to receive, by using the name Jehovah. This is done “propter excellentem benedictionem. Non enim loquitur de corporali benedictione, sed de benedictione futura per semen promissum. Eam tantam videt esse ut explicari verbis non possit, ideo se vertit ad gratiarum actionem” (Luther). Because Jehovah is the God of Shem, Shem will be the recipient and heir of all the blessings of salvation, which God as Jehovah bestows upon mankind. לָמֹו = לָהֶם neither stands for the singular לֹו (Ges. § 103, 2), nor refers to Shem and Japhet. It serves to show that the announcement does not refer to the person relation of Canaan to Shem, but applies to their descendants.
     Gen. 9:27. “Wide let God make it to Japhet, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” Starting from the meaning of the name, Noah sums up his blessing in the word יַפְתְּ (japht), from פָּתָה to be wide (Prov. 20:19), in the Hiphil with לְ, to procure a wide space for any one, used either of extension over a wide territory, or of removal to a free, unfettered position; analogous to הִרְחִיב לְ, Gen. 26:22; Ps. 4:1, etc. Both must be retained here, so that the promise to the family of Japhet embraced not only a wide extension, but also prosperity on every hand. This blessing was desired by Noah, not from Jehovah, the God of Shem, who bestows saving spiritual good upon man, but from Elohim, God as Creator and Governor of the world; for it had respect primarily to the blessings of the earth, not to spiritual blessings; although Japhet would participate in these as well, for he should come and dwell in the tents of Shem. The disputed question, whether God or Japhet is to be regarded as the subject of the verb “shall dwell,” is already decided by the use of the word Elohim. If it were God whom Noah described as dwelling in the tents of Shem, so that the expression denoted the gracious presence of God in Israel, we should expect to find the name Jehovah, since it was as Jehovah that God took up His abode among Shem in Israel. It is much more natural to regard the expression as applying to Japhet, (a) because the refrain, “Canaan shall be his servant,” requires that we should understand v. 27 as applying to Japhet, like v. 26 to Shem; (b) because the plural, tents, is not applicable to the abode of Jehovah in Israel, inasmuch as in the parallel passages “we read of God dwelling in His tent, on His holy hill, in Zion, in the midst of the children of Israel, and also of the faithful dwelling in the tabernacle or temple of God, but never of God dwelling in the tents of Israel” (Hengstenberg); and (c) because we should expect that act of affection, which the two sons so delicately performed in concert, to have its corresponding blessing in the relation established between the two (Delitzsch). Japhet’s dwelling in the tents of Shem is supposed by Bochart and others to refer to the fact, that Japhet’s descendants would one day take the land of the Shemites, and subjugate the inhabitants; but even the fathers almost unanimously understand the words in a spiritual sense, as denoting the participation of the Japhetites in the saving blessings of the Shemites. There is truth in both views. Dwelling presupposes possession; but the idea of taking by force is precluded by the fact, that it would be altogether at variance with the blessing pronounced upon Shem. If history shows that the tents of Shem were conquered and taken by the Japhetites, the dwelling predicted here still relates not to the forcible conquest, but to the fact that the conquerors entered into the possessions of the conquered; that along with them they were admitted to the blessings of salvation; and that, yielding to the spiritual power of the vanquished, they lived henceforth in their tents as brethren (Ps. 133:1). And if the dwelling of Japhet in the tents of Shem presupposes the conquest of the land of Shem by Japhet, it is a blessing not only to Japhet, but to Shem also, since, whilst Japhet enters into the spiritual inheritance of Shem, he brings to Shem all the good of this world (Isa. 60). “The fulfilment,” as Delitzsch says, “is plain enough, for we are all Japhetites dwelling in the tents of Shem; and the language of the New Testament is the language of Javan entered into the tents of Shem.” To this we may add, that by the Gospel preached in this language, Israel, though subdued by the imperial power of Rome, became the spiritual conqueror of the orbis terrarum Romanus, and received it into his tents. Moreover it is true of the blessing and curse of Noah, as of all prophetic utterances, that they are fulfilled with regard to the nations and families in question as a whole, but do not predict, like an irresistible fate, the unalterable destiny of every individual; on the contrary, they leave room for freedom of personal decision, and no more cut off the individuals in the accursed race from the possibility of conversion, or close the way of salvation against the penitent, than they secure the individuals of the family blessed against the possibility of falling from a state of grace, and actually losing the blessing. Hence, whilst a Rahab and an Araunah were received into the fellowship of Jehovah, and the Canaanitish woman was relieved by the Lord because of her faith, the hardened Pharisees and scribes had woes pronounced upon them, and Israel was rejected because of its unbelief.
     In vv. 28, 29, the history of Noah is brought to a close, with the account of his age, and of his death.

     Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Hendrickson, 1996), 98–101.

     The theory that Ham is related to Africans was a rabbinical theory (not biblical doctrine):

     Older talmudic sources relate Ham’s punishment to immoral sexual behavior on the ark and make him the ancestor of the African peoples (e.g., Sanh. 108b; Ta‛an. 1.64d). His immorality during the deluge was imitated, reportedly, by the dog and raven. This legendary elaboration of the biblical narrative is followed by Philo (Quaestiones, 2.49; the pseudepigraphal Book of Adam and Eve 3.11 and Evangel of Seth 40) and Origen. According to another tradition Ham committed sodomy (Sanh. 70a), while in yet another he is said to have castrated his father to prevent him from having more children (Tg. Yer. Gen. 9.24-25; Gen. Rab. 36.4-5, 7; Tan. Ber. 1.49; cf. Midr. Haserot 50). Canaan, Ham’s son, said to be equally base in character (Philo, De ebrietati, 2, 7, 10; Quaestiones, 2, 65, 70, 77), was father of the Canaanites and ultimately the Philistines. Ham, like Nimrod, is occasionally linked with magic; in the Clementine Recognitiones (1.30; 4:28-29) he is said to be the first sorcerer, who tried to draw sparks from a fire with the aid of a demon and was burned up in the process. The crowd who observed this, instead of seeing the catastrophe as God’s judgment, began to worship him as a living star, or, in the case of the Persians, as the celestial fire Zoroaster. Another of Ham’s sons, Cush, was said to have fathered Nimrod, the giant who built the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10:6–9). In later Christian commentary, the genealogies are etymologized in such a way that Ham is seen as the father of the Egyptians. The voyeuristic sin of Ham is seen as having been amplified by his call to his brothers to participate in the ridicule. Ham, or “Cham” as his name is rendered in Latin texts, is made by commentaries from St. Augustine indistinguishable in culpability from his son Canaan, who is variously assigned a participatory role. Of Cham himself the judgment is made that instead of being a “son of wisdom” he became “father of sinners” (Glossa Ordinaria [PL 113.112]).

     Tg. Targum

     PL Patrologia Latina

     David L. Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (W.B. Eerdmans, 1992), s.v. “Ham”.

     Reply ↓

     • Thanks for all these resources…very helpful. Is the Logos article saying that all curses in Genesis are ended by Christ?

       So many things that keep happening today started happening in Genesis…like death, toil to make a living, pain in childbirth, the curse on the ground and thorns and thistles, etc.
       Then there’s the curse on people who curse the descendants of Abraham. Kinists will get mad and say i dont know any history, but it does seem like whenever people start cursing and killing the descendants of Abraham, bad things start happening to their country…Spain, Russia, Germany.
       Nations that welcome the Jews do really well. So how do you know which curses are fulfilled and which ones are not?

       Reply ↓

       • Joshua,

         1. Bird is showing that the text simply isn’t condemning Africans to servitude by cursing Ham or Canaan.

         2. Those who are in Christ are no longer under the curse of the law, i.e., condemnation (Rom 8:1) but that doesn’t mean that there are not continuing consequences for the fall. We will live with pain and travail until Christ returns.

         3. The Reformed do not typically agree that the Jews considered as an ethnic group have special status with the exception that many Reformed have believed that there will be a future ingathering of Jews to Christ before Christ returns. This is a matter of debate within the Reformed community. For those of us who are united to Christ, the old barrier between Jew and Gentile has been torn down (Col 2) by the body and blood of Christ. That’s why he says what he does in Col 3:11 and Gal 3:28.

         4. The church, whether Jewish or mixed, has always been the Israel of God. It was administered through the Jews from the time of Abraham’s circumcision until the cross. After the cross, the church was intentionally enlarged to include all the nations. The national people of Israel expired at the cross.

         5. That said, there good natural arguments for the modern state of Israel and inasmuch as we fervently desire all to come to Christ, Christians ought to be gracious, kind, and even protective of Jews and all the more in light of the terrible history of pogroms and persecution culminating in the holocaust.

         6. The holocaust deniers are ignorant and possibly worse. The evidence for the holocaust is overwhelming. It is just blind to deny it. It is tragic to see virulent and violent antisemitism arising among young people but it reflects the poverty of their education.

         Reply ↓

4. “To be more specific, if I had to point my finger at any one thing in our own society, I would point it the embrace of wokeism and Critical Race Theory by churches following the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter movements of 2020.”

   Okay, but this article is about racism in NAPARC. perhaps some NAPARC churches were preaching CRT, but it can’t have been very many. Yet, in the most conservative NAPARC churches we’re encountering more and more racism. So, if this theory is correct, we’re talking about people (mosty very-online youngish men) turning racist as a result of what some other racists in some other church were doing. I’m not saying this isn’t a possible explanation (though, I expect the racists are not motivated by theological concerns), I just want to highlight how bogus it is as an excuse.

   I appreciated the article very much. Thank you for posting a link.

   Reply ↓

5. What would be helpful is how to answer the argument that while Ham was not cursed, he was not blessed. A layman, reading Gen. 9.25-27 in simplicity, will conclude that Shem and Japheth will receive more blessing than Ham.

   How do we answer this?

   Reply ↓

   • Joshua,

     The answer to bad exegesis (interpretation) is to do better interpretation. That means to read the text in its context, according to the intent of the author. If we follow these simple rules, which anyone, including any layman, can do.

     When we follow these rules we see that the text has nothing to do with Africans or their alleged inferiority.

     The racist appeal to Ham has always foundered when Genesis is read in context.

     Reply ↓

     • ((As a footnote to this helpful discussion, the Mormons have this horrid racist interpretation of Genesis 9 in their history. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others taught it.))

       Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.