Is it a correct interpretation of Scripture to say that the racial exploitation of those of African descent, including slavery in the United States, is a fulfillment of Noah’s curse on Canaan (Gen. 9:25)? Or is it an attempt to condone, in the name of religion, racial inequalities such as apartheid in South Africa?
During the recent civil rights movement in the United States, some militant African-Americans attempted to dismiss Christianity as being, in their words, “the white man’s religion.” It was during this period of history that the Black Muslin movement gained its greatest number of followers. How the curse on Canaan is understood and interpreted to others has profound implications for the spread of the gospel. It has led many of African descent to renounce their “Christian slave names,” such as Cassius Clay becoming Mohammed Ali and adopting Islam as his religion. The Rastafarians, a Jamaican messianic movement , is another response to Christianity being viewed as a white man’s religion: “Rastafarians claim that white Christian preachers and missionaries have perverted the Scriptures to conceal the fact that Adam and Jesus were black” (Academic American Encyclopedia, 1986, vol. 16:91).
The curse on Canaan deserves careful consideration by Bible students. How it is understood and interpreted will determine if it wins hearts to Christ or alienates potential converts.
“And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of S hem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant” (Gen. 9:25-27).
A common and careless interpretation of this passage is that the curse on Canaan is on the Hamitic people who are said to be the original inhabitants of Southern and Western Africa. The fulfillment of this curse is said to include the conquest and enslavement of black Africans by white Europeans in recent centuries. Further, this subjugation of one race nationality by another is said to be the will of God because of the inferior status blacks have in the plan of God.
Questions about the curse of Canaan
This common interpretation of the curse on Canaan is extremely superficial and devoid of Biblical scholarship. Before stating any conclusions about this passage, a number of issues will be identified in the form of questions.
- Does the curse on Canaan, who was only one of four sons of Ham, apply to the Canaanites in particular, or to all descendants of Ham?
- If the curse applies equally to all of Ham’s sons, how in particular does it apply to Nimrod, who was “a mighty hunter before the LORD,” a builder of cities and a dominant force in the land of Shinar?
- Since Canaan was to become a servant of his brethren, does this not apply to servitude among families and people who share things in common, as opposed to enslavement by foreigners of a distant nation with an alien culture?
- Does the language and style of the prophecy suggest a more immediate fulfillment during Biblical times or a future fulfillment thousands of years later in industrial societies?
- Most important of all, is this prophecy descriptive of what would happen, or prescriptive of what should happen? For example, Gen. 1:29 and 2:24 are prescriptive, in that these passages indicate what Adam and Woman should eat, and how a man and his wife should relate to each other in marriage. Gen. 2:17 and 3:16 are descriptive, in that they indicate what would happen if Adam disobeyed God and how men in a fallen state will mistreat their wives.
Some suggestions and tentative answers
It is to be noted that in Noah’s curse on Canaan and his blessings on Shem and Japheth, only Canaan is mentioned – on three occasions – as becoming a servant. Ham, on the other hand, is conspicuous by his absence even though he is clearly implicated in seeing his father naked (Gen. 9:22). A suggestion offered by some commentaries is that Canaan indulged in some perverted lust upon Noah that Ham discovered and did nothing about. Scripture could indicate this in saying, “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without [rather than acting against Canaan]” (Gen. 9:22).
When Gen 10:6 makes it clear that Ham had at least four sons, it is reasonable to ask if the curse was on Canaan, in particular, and not on Hamitic people in general.
Also consider the statement, “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” This suggests a fulfillment among nations and families who are dwelling together.
The most reasonable interpretation of Gen. 9:25-28, in the context of Genesis chapters 9-11, is to expect one or more of the following conditions to be met:
- The descendants of Canaan become servants of the descendants of Shem in a manner that also includes their serving descendants of Japheth.
- Some of Canaan’s descendants become servants of some descendants of Shem and Japheth at a time and place when the three are dwelling together as brothers.
- The servitude of Canaan’s descendants as a fulfillment of Noah’s curse would only happen as a consequence of specific wickedness at a particular point in time.
The descendants of Canaan are easy to identify because they became known as Canaanites (Gen. 10:15-19). Some descendants of Shem are also easy to identify because they became known as Hebrews (Gen. 10:21; 14:13). Shem was a righteous man (Gen. 9:26) and the blessing on him was to extend to Japheth, who was “to dwell in the tents of Shem.”
The time in history that best satisfied this condition occurred when individuals and families became Abraham’s seed because of their faith. This happened, for example, when a “mixed multitude” (Ex. 12:38) were saved with the Hebrews, when they were delivered from Egypt. By affiliating with the children of Israel, it could be said that Japheth was dwelling in the tents of Shem!
When the Israelites, under Joshua, entered the promised land of Canaan, they were told to utterly destroy the Canaanites who consisted of about seven different nations (Ex. 34:10-14; Josh. 9:1). One of those nations, the Hivities (Gen. 10:17), lived a few miles from Jerusalem in Gibeon. These Gibeonites pretended to be from a far country and deceived Joshua into making a vow to protect them. When Joshua learned of their trickery, he cursed them: “ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (Josh.9:23, see also vs. 6-15).
The Gibeonites were descendants of Canaan dwelling with the Israelites; they became servants of S hem’s descendants; they were cursed because they deceived Joshua and not simply because they were descendants of Canaan. Here is probably the fulfillment of Noah’s curse on Canaan.
It is further significant that their “curse” turned out to be a blessing in that they became faithful to the Lord and Joshua delivered them from their enemies (Josh. 10:6-8). Many years later, Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites (II Sam. 21:1-9). Again, God came to their rescue and slew the guilty members of Saul’s household. Thus, some of S hem ‘s descendants were punished because of their bigotry toward righteous descendants of Canaan! The curse of the Gibeonites was fulfilled in a similar manner to the curse on Levi (Gen. 49:5-7) whose descendants became the priests in Israel. There is a lesson in submitting to the Lord because it means deliverance in the end.
Is there a “white man’s religion?”
Yes, it is possible to pervert God’s word and think in terms of deliverance and enslavement being justified along racial lines. Just as the Rastafarians and Black Muslims have perverted God’s word in their interpretations of Scripture in which the “white man is the devil,” so have some white Christians carelessly interpreted Scripture in seeking to understand why, in recent centuries, people of color have been enslaved and exploited.
Scripture teaches us that “Blessed be the LORD God of Shem.” But Scripture defines further the blessing as being applicable to those who are Shem’s and Abraham’s spiritual descendants, those who are faithful and walk in the steps of faithful Abraham. It is a common mistake in Scriptural exegesis to mistake descriptive pronouncement for prescriptive ones. There is no true religion that belongs to the white man or the black man. Paul sums it up best when he concludes: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:27-29).
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One