I want to talk about the curse

[al Hartman]

D., why do I get the impression that you're going to name your next daughter Epiphany?

[Kimberley Tobin]

Delila:

I think you've got it!  

[vernecarty]

Having waited 24 hours, I think I can calmly say the following:

There is no bigotry so intransigent as religious bigotry. It is an unfortunate fact that people of religious fervor will justify the most vile and despicable dispositions and conduct on the basis of their religion. The teaching that Black people labor under Noah’s curse of his eldest son Ham,  is one form of such religious bigotry and has been used by countless Jim Crow era preachers to justify the treatment of Blacks during America’s appalling participation in the enslavement of Africans. Persons of weak minds reading a statement like that made by Brent Tr0ckman could easily assume the man is a bigot and find comfort for their own bosom prejudices.
I want to say clearly that I do not believe the man to be a racist. The statement was simply monumentally stupid and I will attempt to show why. Invoking history was particluarly amusing. One could easily ask:
What period of history are you referring to?
Zimbabwe pre or post Robert Mugabe?
South Africa pre or post Nelson Mandela?
America pre or post Columbus?
The fundamental error of a statement that it is a historical fact that Black people from Africa have been cursed to serve their brethren  as a result of Noah’s curse over Ham’s behavior is that it has basis in neither fact nor history, and by its  indiscriminate and all-inclusive scope comprise the very essence of prejudice. I had written a long piece about the history of African nations springing from the other descendants of Ham but I am not going to post it. Rather I will simply post in three installments an excellent treatment of the subject by Christian scholar Gleason Archer. I think this would be more useful and less contentious. My only interest is in setting the record straight, and not a confrontation with Brent. I think he is a good guy.

The reason Noah cursed his son Ham was that he had derided and dishonored his father after he found him naked, sleeping off a drunken stupor. Ham should have treated him respectfully even though his father (who had apparently never tasted liquor before) had made a fool of himself. But it should be carefully noted that only one of the sons of Ham, namely, Canaan was singled out for suffering the effect of Ham’s curse. Genesis 9:23 quotes Noah as saying:”Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants, {or slave of slaves; Heb-ebed badim} he shall be to his brothers. (NASB)
Ham had three sons besides Canaan, namely Cush, Misraim and Put (Gen 10:6), but the penalty was announced only for Canaan, the ancestor of the Cannanites of Palestine, rather than for Cush and Put who were probably the ancestors of the Ethiopians and the black peoples of  Africa. The fulfillment of the curse came about in Joshua’s conquest, (ca. 1400 B.C), and also in the conquest of Phoenicia and other Cannanites by the Persian Emptire, since the Persians were descended in all probability from Japheth through Madai. This does seem to be the earliest occurrence of ebed in the sense of “slave”, that can be found in Scripture.
More on slavery…
Verne

[M2]

Verne,

I believe that you misunderstood Brent's comments.  I do not agree with your statement that his comments encourage the harboring of prejudices.  If someone is weak minded the issue is that they are weak minded not that they are harboring prejudices.  Weak minded individuals will not honestly investigate in order to find out the truth of the matter anyway and will therefore continue to harbor their prejudices.

I am not any more anti-Germanic for having watched a movies like Schindler's List where the German's were portrayed in a bad light.  Even as The Passion movie is not an anti-semetic movie but rather a portrayal of a historical event.

Brent's comments are valid in the context of his presentation of them and in the context of his past history on this BB.  I believe this racist issue is a 'trigger' for you.  You once suggested that I made racist comments when I posted that Indians tend to be tardy.  I urge you to re-consider you line of attack on this matter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Discussions about racism are truly touchy. So I won't comment. I'm on the BB this morning because I'm waiting for the Indian cable guy to show up. He's late.


--Joe

[sfortescue]

Verne,

...  I do not agree with your statement that his comments encourage the harboring of prejudices.

Marcia,

I believe that what Verne said is very civil and level-headed.  You have slightly misrepresented what he said by replacing a passive statement with an active one, so your argument is against something a little different from what he actually said.

Brent's comments are valid in the context of ...

Brent's comments don't seem to agree with what it says in Genesis 9.  Is there another passage on this subject?

[editor]

 I urge you to re-consider you line of attack on this matter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

I beg your pardon Ms Marcia. Exactly what attack are you referring to?
Trust me, you have not seen me in attack mode...
Verne

While I am not positive exactly what Marcia is referring to,  I suspect it may have something to do with what you said in your posts on this thread.  Here is a stab in the dark:

What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.
Brent

You've got to be kidding me!
A laughable fable espoused only by those totally ignorant of the history of the African continent. Now I've heard everything...!
Not everthing Eidersheim says is necessarily so...
Furthermore, the  text clearly says the curse was issued to Canaan! To try and tar as it were all of Ham's descendants with such drivel is nothing more than black pathology masquerading as theology...you surprise me...
Verne
p.s. I am also assuming that everyone on this BB knows where white people came from...or do they??!!
I have a funny feeling I am going to really regret responding to this...

What I said is:  Laughable drivel.
The reason I said it is because I suffer from"black pathology" and I am totally ignorant of the history of the African Continent.  Furthermore Eidersheim is also wrong for the same reasons.

Some people might read what I said, and what you said,  and draw the conclusion that you were attacking my character, while ignoring my words.

Here are some facts:

Jehovah pronounced judgement against the gods of Egypt----the descendants of Mizraim, I believe.  Also, the Philistines, Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites and a few other 'ites.  Descendants of Ham all of them!

Why did only Canaan suffer when it was his Dad that did wrong?  Again, read between the lines and use what it revealed in Scripture to get the best possible answer.  Ham's line became evil faster than the others, with Nimrod at the vanguard,  and Mizraim in close second. These are the facts.

I believe that Noah recognized this in his son Ham, and his son Canaan, when he pronounced the curse.  This is my opinion, but one that has some merit and is shared by others.

No worries about racism, or black pathology here,  The Medes---descendants of Madai, Japheth's son were also cursed as were the Semites, Shem's descendants.  It's called sin, and it was present in Adam, and also Noah.

Whites aren't any better than blacks by nature, neither are Jews better than people of Oriental descent.  We all comprise the human race, all share the same number of chromasomes,  have the ability to smile, the need to eat and drink and all of us have the same claim to God's grace as we are sinners who call upon His Name.

History is history.  Re-writing it, or ignoring it is tantamount to telling a lie.  
Being ignorant is a situation that is easily remedied, however.

Please tell me how what I said was wrong.  However, if all you do is dismiss it as "black pathology," without correcting my factual and logical errors you are being intellectually dishonest, at best.

I am ready for my history lesson.

Brent

[wmathews]

Hi everyone,
   I want to weigh in on the last interactions regarding racism and the curse of Ham.  First of all, I believe that in Christ ALL past curses are nullified as per Gal. 3:13.  Therefore all speculation about curses, whether racial or national, are at best foolish speculation, and at worst, justification of the ugliest form of racism, that being religiously justified.  I suggest some further reading for my comfortably white conservative Christian friends: God's Long Summer by C. Marsh, and This Far By Faith by Juan Williams.  Both describe the terrible religious justification by whites for prejudice and domination.  More than any single issue, this history is a pall and blot upon the Christian testimony in America  .  The miracle is that in spite of white behavior and policy, the African American community has been anchored by its Christian faith.  Personally, after dissociation with the Geftakys ministry, my primary priority in finding a church was to find a bible believing church REALLY COMMITTED to racial reconciliation.  Thankfully God has led me to New Covenant Fellowship here in Champaign, IL.   Finally, as for the exegesis of Gen. curse of Ham, i agree with Verne that it was singled out for Canaan, and historically played out in the dispossession of the land of Canaan by Israel (read The Bible as History  by W. Keller to see the lifestyle of Canaanites if you think this was unfair.  I have traveled around the world and I have not seen people as open to the Gospel as Africa.  Yes I know the arguments about poverty and HIV as part of Hamitic curse, but I could make as strong an argument that these are by-products of european colonialism and slavery, but I will not venture into historical speculation.  Selah.
Wayne

[editor]

Hi everyone,
   I want to weigh in on the last interactions regarding racism and the curse of Ham.  First of all, I believe that in Christ ALL past curses are nullified as per Gal. 3:13.  

I agree, totally.

I also submit that if our "Bible knowledge," causes us to act like racist bigots, it is neither biblical, or knowledge.

I want every resident of Egypt to be saved, but that doesn't mean that God didn't curse their firstborn at one time.

Similarily,  the fact that there is a large Christian community amonty Palestinians doesn't erase the fact that at one time God cursed them and told Joshua to kill them all!  (I am fully aware that the modern day Palestinians are not the same as the ancient ones,  but they are somewhat related.  The Jews are definitely the same, and they have people illegaly occupying their land!----at least that is one way to look at it.  However, even this is debateable, given the facts that we are in the age of Grace, and live in a secular/Islamic world.)

This is a new day, and a new dispensation,  and the Grace of God has appeared to all men.

The fact that I view Noah's curse on Canaan, for Ham's actions, as something that effected his entire line doesn't mean I am justifiying racism at all.

If someone says,  "Ham was cursed, therefore we should enslave them," I will totally oppose such a person, as I completely disagree with them.  Biblical slavery was voluntary.  The type of slavery we see today in Africa and the MiddleEast, as well as the atrocities that were committed in America are condemned in the Bible.

They fall under the category of kidnapping, which was punishable by death.

Poverty and HIV have nothing to do with the curse.  They have to do with corrupt politics,  immoral behavior and a large disadvantage due to recent history.  Certainly these things are in plentiful supply right here in multiracial America.  Does that mean we are under the curse of Ham?  Certainly not!

America shall surely grow worse and worse, as we fall more and more into secular morality.  It has nothing to do with Ham, or Canaan.

Nevertheless,  I see no reason to ignore Genesis 9 and 10.  Just because I interpret it the way I do does not earn me the label of "ignorant black pathologist."

Putting the racism issue aside for good, can someone please answer this:

If Ham, the father of Canaan, was the one who saw the nakedness of his father, why did Noah curse Canaan for what his father had done?

Gen 9:17  And God said to Noah, "This [is] the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that [is] on the earth."  18  Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham [was] the father of Canaan.  19  These three [were] the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.  20  And Noah began [to] [be] a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  21  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.  22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  23  But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid [it] on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces [were] turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.  24  So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him.  25  Then he said:  "Cursed [be] Canaan;  A servant of servants  He shall be to his brethren."  26  And he said:  "Blessed [be] the Lord,  The God of Shem,  And may Canaan be his servant.  27  May God enlarge Japheth,  And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;  And may Canaan be his servant."

So far, Delila makes the strongest argument about this passage.  If I read her correctly she is saying:(I am not trying to put words in your mouth, this is more of a rhetorical statement)

Ham, and especially Canaan, didn't deserve such a harsh punishment.  After all, Noah was the one who got drunk.  Also, Noah may have been drunk when he pronounced the curse.  The main point of the passage is that it is confusing at best, and most likely demonstrates bad conduct and inequity from Noah.  The whole thing is a strong argument against the validity of the scripture.

I don't agree with this view,  but it sure carries more weight than just saying that it is foolish to speculate about these things.  

What are they in the Bible for if we are not supposed to think about them?

I answer my question above by saying that Noah cursed Canaan, because he saw in him a virulent form of the behavior that he learned from his father Ham.  The other boys (and girls) were undoubtedly influenced by Ham as well.  Certainly Cush had a bad apple in his family....a guy named Nimrod.

At the same time, Shem had a few nice kids, as did Japeth.  Even Ham had a few nice descendants, but overall, they became evil, fast.  

Here is an interesting fact.  While we are not told how long Ham lived,  we are told that Shem actually was alive after Abraham died.  Surely, Shem was able to pass along the knowledge of God to many people.  Perhaps the Magi in Jesus' time were the recipients of ancient Semitic knowledge, who knows?

My point is that if Shem's godly influence molded one culture, surely Ham's influence molded another.  Clearly,  someone created or related the god's of Egypt, Babylon and elswhere.  Ham is the father of polytheism.  

So, why did Noah curse Canaan for Ham's actions?

So far, since we are rejecting my argument under guise of racism, Delila is in first place.

Brent

P.S.  I shall take your advice and read those books Wayne.

[Oscar]

Folks,

Regarding the harshness of the curse on Ham.

When I took Old Testament at Talbot, the professor, a Hebrew scholar, said that it was at least "strongly implied" that Canaan had commited a sexual act involving his incapacitated father.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

I saw this Marx Brother's movie where Groucho was a teacher, and Chico and Harpo were in class. Harpo started goofing around and then Groucho got very angry, pointed at a pretty girl in the class and said "Just for that, she stays after school". The girl says"Hey, why should I stay after school? I didn't do anything wrong!" Groucho says "Well, it's no fun keeping him(nodding towards Harpo) after school."

Sorry---but Canaan getting cursed for Ham's wrong-doing made me think of that.

--Joe

[editor]

Folks,

Regarding the harshness of the curse on Ham.

When I took Old Testament at Talbot, the professor, a Hebrew scholar, said that it was at least "strongly implied" that Canaan had commited a sexual act involving his incapacitated father.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I had heard the same thing, and the fact that Ham knew about it and did nothing.  

Brent

[al Hartman]

     Of all the quotables posted on this thread in the past 24 hours, this is my favorite:

          Having waited 24 hours, I think I can calmly say the following:
[/b]

     Were it not for the 24-hour pause, who knows but what we very well might have seen Verne in "attack mode?"  A day's pause to reflect is one of the wisest decisions one can make prior to initiating reactive action.  By this means, reaction may be replaced by reasonable response.
     Thanks to Verne's insightfulness, I have placed above my monitor, in bold red block lettering, the motto WAIT 24 HOURS...[/color][/u].


     An interesting sidelight to the current discussion is the consideration that many native Africans and their descendants came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as a result of slavery in the Americas.  If not for their captivity, they would have almost certainly remained in ignorance of the gospel in Africa.
     Does this wholly or in part justify slavery?  Of course not!  
     Does it justify God's behing-the-scenes manipulation of the elements of our lives?  God needs no justification!
     As we run our marathon, let us not become distracted by the surrounding scenery and lose sight of the goal...

al

[vernecarty]

As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest. Slavery was as integral a part of ancient culture as commerce, taxation, or temple service. Not until the more exalted concept of man and his innate dignity as a person created in the image of God had permeated the world as a product of Bible teaching did a strong sentiment arise in Christendom in criticism of slavery and a questioning of its right to exist. No equivalent movement toward abolition is discernible in any non-Christian civilization for which we have any knowledge
  In Genesis ebed is used in the sense of being politically in subjection to a foreign power. Hebrew slaves were required under the Mosaic law to be set free after six years of service; they could not be made to serve out their entire lives as slaves unless they willingly chose to remain so, out of love for their masters. (Exodus 21:2-7) In some cases slaves were held in great honor, that is to say, the nobles were generally called "servants" of their king- a title of honor, something like Paul's reference to himself as a "bondslave of Jesus Christ"
Gleason Archer

[wmathews]

Thanks Brent for your thoughtful reply.  When we agree that the wonder of the Gospel is that Christ has redeemed us from ALL CURSES of the law, and its subsequent condemnation, we can proceed with love and liberty.  No race or people has a monopoly on slavery and oppression.  Although the dialogue so far has been challenging, and I do not pretend to have the final scriptural interpretation on the curse of Ham, there is no doubt a historical consequence to his shameful behavior.  However, this past sin has been used as a scriptural justification for subjugation of people of color by European professors of Christianity.  Of course, much of the Islamic and Arab culture is still practicing slavery, however, they do not name the Name of Christ, 2 Tim. 2:19.  All in all, I think this is a healthy dialogue. Thanks for everyone's input.  I am willing to learn more about this issue.  
Wayne