We will need to first identify the sons of Noah and then the descendants of Ham. This information is recorded in Genesis 10. Noah had three sons: Japheth, Shem and The whole issue centers around Ham and his sons so we will list them in the sequence of birth—Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan the youngest. Each, except Canaan, was the founder of an empire or nation. Cush founded Sudan, also called Nubia or Mumbi, and indirectly founded Aksum, later called Ethiopia. Mizraim founded Egypt. Phut founded Libya. Genesis 10:1,6. Canaan did not found an empire, but his descendants dwelt in the land of Canaan which consisted of a number of city-states each independent of the other. Due to genetics, not all of Ham’s offspring were black.

After the Flood

Genesis 9 and 10 delineate the sons of Noah and their descendants for several generations. But notice, Genesis 9:18 is basic to the whole issue of the “curse of Ham” versus the “curse of Canaan.” One might  react—the “curse  of Canaan”—what is that? That is the whole problem. As we shall see, the Bible teaches the “curse of Canaan” but not the diabolical “curse of Ham” that the bigotry of the past centuries has seized upon. Over the centuries, thousands upon thousands have suffered brutality and death motivated by belief in the “curse of Ham” concept. Even thousands in our freedom loving country, the United States, used the “curse of Ham” to justified the brutal slavery of Blacks. Yes, the “curse of Ham” played a part in the cessation of the Southern States that helped precipitate the Civil War. In our 21st century a minority still believes in the “curse of Ham” albeit in a modified degree which, nevertheless, belittles our African brethren.

Now a key scripture. Genesis 9:18: “And the sons of Noah that went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham is the father of Canaan.”

Unfortunately Genesis 9:18 is casually read. What is so significant about Verse 18? It singles out the main character and real culprit in this abominable fiasco. How? An important rule of Bible study is if a Verse contains a seeming irrelevant or out of context word or phrase, stop and ask yourself—Why? What is the purpose of that irrelevant phase? In this case what is out of context in Verse 18?

The purpose of Verse 18 is to identify the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, which it does. Then Verse 18 completely out of context goes on to  say  “…Ham is the father of Canaan.” Canaan is the grandson of Noah, but the self-stated purpose of Verse 18 is to identify the sons of Noah, not Noah’s grandson, Canaan. Noah’s grandsons are not listed until Chapter 10 of Genesis, which contains the listing of all Noah’s grandsons, including Canaan, and also all the great grandsons of Noah. In all of this only Canaan was especially singled out in Verse 18 and mentioned before the general listing of Noah’s grandsons Why? Canaan, not Ham, is the main villain in this tragedy that is unfolding.

After the flood the longevity of life still remained with Noah, and, to a lesser degree, the sons of Noah. Noah lived nine hundred and fifty years. However, as time passed after the Flood, lifespans were significantly reduced. Lifespans were not the only thing that had changed with this new world, as Noah soon found out. Wine is mentioned for the first time in the Bible in Genesis 9:21. This incident became a crucial moment in the lives of each of the sons of Noah.

The natural assumption of Noah was that he and his sons would still practice the same farming and food gathering methods as they had before the flood. Unknown to Noah, the change in environment in the new world would have a profound effect on farming.

Noah and His Sons

After the Flood receded Noah returned to farming before the food supply on the ark ran out. Certainly he brought seeds with him. Whether it was grape or some other berry juice, Noah, as was his custom before the Flood, evidently made many containers of berry juice. Br. Russell observed that before the flood the climatic conditions were different and the berry juices did not ferment. After consuming a few bottles of berry juice, Noah probably noticed the juice began to have a tangy taste which he possibly enjoyed. Each bottle tasted  tangier until the juice became completely fermented. Unaware that it would have any adverse effects, Noah drank enough to become completely intoxicated. He staggered to his room and while undressing fell down in a drunken stupor and lay naked.

Noah’s son Ham had occasion to go into his father’s room while Noah lay naked in a drunken stupor. A distinct difference is seen in the reaction of the sons of Noah. Ham snickered and reveled in Noah’s mishap and informed his brothers. Whereas, Shem and Japheth immediately went to their father’s room with a blanket and entered backward, so as not to see their father in his shame, and covered his naked body.

Then Genesis 9:24,25 reveals, “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son [Ham] had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan. He shall be a servant of servants to his brothers.”

Noah knew that Ham looked at him with perverted satisfaction and laughed in mockery. Remember, Ham the son of Noah, in turn, had four sons—“Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan the youngest.” Prophetically, by divine inspiration, Noah said, “Cursed be Canaan….” Why did Noah say Canaan was cursed and not Ham? Noah realized Ham found perverted pleasure in seeing his father without clothes, but Noah knew Ham’s perversion was a perversion in thinking.

Inherited qualities are diversely passed on to children of the same parents, so Noah was prophetically clarifying that of the four sons of Ham, Canaan, Ham’s fourth son, would inherit the immoral qualities of Ham. Remember, Genesis 9:22 identified Canaan, not Ham, as the main player in this tragic drama. Ham’s pleasure in seeing his father’s nakedness revealed that Ham had a perverted character that would continue to increase through the inherited lineage of Canaan.

There are many wrong theories as to why Ham was cursed and the curse passed on to Canaan. But that is just what they are—theories. Only this much is scripturally certain—Canaan, not Ham, was cursed and both Scriptures and history describe how this curse on Canaan was fulfilled by 138 BC.

The “Curse of Ham” Not Scriptural

The non-scriptural phrase “curse of Ham” concept is based on an unwarranted interpretation of Genesis 9:22,23: “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders. And they went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father. And their faces were backwards, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.”

Some, without warrant, claim the word “saw” in Verse 22  is a special word that means that Ham engaged in an immoral act on his naked father and then Ham told his two brothers only that their father was naked. His brothers by contrast showed dignity for their father by walking in backwards with a sheet and covered him. By creating an immoral Ham, they feel they now have a perverted Ham worthy of a curse or punishment, which enabled them to create the non-scriptural phrase “curse of Ham.”

But the Hebrew word “saw” in Verse 22 is Strong’s #7200 which means “to see literally or figuratively.” It is the main biblical word in the Old Testament to denote “see,” and consequently is used over 250 times. In no way is it a special word in Verse 22 to denote perversion.

An interesting translation is found in one of the most prolific and respected commentaries of the 4th century AD—commonly known as the Cave of Treasures. This Aramaic translation of the Bible and several other sources had Ham gossiping about his father’s drunken disgrace “in the street” (a reading which some claim has a possible basis in the original Hebrew), so that being held up to public mockery was what had angered Noah. As the Cave of Treasures puts it, “Ham laughed at his father’s shame and did not cover it, but laughed aloud and mocked.” Evidently the 4th century Christian Church did not believe Ham was physically involved with his father, Noah. Rather Ham only looked at him, laughed and, at most, mocked him.

This confirms the curse was not placed on Ham but on Canaan. Also, we will see that Canaan was not black. This proves that the so-called “curse of Ham” theory is false. It  is not found in Scripture.

A Man-Made Conspiracy

It is significant that the Christian Church, up to the 4th century did not believe in the “curse of Ham” theory, the concept that Africans, as the “sons of Ham,” were cursed, “blackened” for their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages (Wikipedia), but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th centuries where it is abundantly found in Nominal Christian writings since the 1600s.

How sad that so-called Christian writings could endorse the “curse of Ham” supposition, which was a diabolical, arrogant, man-made conspiracy that has caused much brutal suffering, pain and death. Think of the cracking of the whip on the slave-ships, the chopping-off of toes of slaves who attempted to escape, the abuse of woman slaves, etc. How sad, how sick and how unchristian.

We thank the Lord that during the 1800s there were Christians like Henry Grew, William Miller, George Storrs, and Pastor Charles Russell who did not believe in the “curse of Ham.”

True, slavery is nearly as old as human history, but that does not make it right. True, God permitted slavery in Israel, but His Law defined very humane treatment and Hebrew slaves were to be freed every seven years with a severance payment. But it is wrong to claim that God singled out the African people to endure this curse.

Black Africans being slaves of Whites is not the fulfillment of Bible prophesy but of man’s lust for power and wealth. Imagine a Southern plantation owner with fifty to a hundred slaves instead of having to pay a living wage to fifty to a hundred hired laborers. Thus, slavery provided sheer wealth and luxury for a few at the expense of brutality for tens of thousands of African slaves.

The Land of Canaan

The curse placed on Canaan had only to do with his descendants, the Canaanites. They settled in a territory they called the Land of Canaan where they established many Canaanite “city-states.” The Canaanites were not black, nor was Canaan the land they settled in a part of Africa. Remember, God gave this Land of Canaan to Israel. Israel was not in Africa. Consequently, the skin texture of Israelites and Canaanites at the time of Israel’s invasion of Canaan under Joshua was probably very  similar. The problem concerning the Canaanites was not in the color of their skin, but rather in the inherited condition of their hearts.

In addition to the many Canaanite “city-states,” the southwest section of the Land of Canaan was invaded and occupied by the Philistines (not Palestinians) from Crete.

Actually they were Japhethites, the descendants of Japheth. The Philistines were aggressive against the Canaanite city-states. Of course the Land of Canaan was to become the Land of Israel. But when?

One of the determining factors is found in Deuteronomy. Speaking of the Canaanites, the Prophet Moses later told Israel, (Deuteronomy 9:5, ESV) “…because of the wickedness of these nations (city-states of the Canaanites) the LORD your God is driving them out from before you….” Just how wicked were these city-state nations in Canaan?

Bible historian Henry H. Halley notes: “…in a large measure the land of Canaan had become a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah on a national scale…. Archaeologists who dig in the ruins in the Canaanite cities wonder that God did not destroy them before he did.” If, after the iniquity of the Canaanites had reached its full, the sins of the Canaanites continued unabated, what would be the consequences? The following generations of Canaanites would have become so morally degenerated that if their lineage continued their consciences would have become too seared for the Truth to appeal to them in the Millennium. Therefore, their destruction was a blessing in disguise so they could have a Kingdom opportunity for life.

At this time in the Land of Canaan we have a unique scriptural mix of the descendants of Noah’s sons—Canaanites, Ham; Philistines, Japheth; Israel, Shem. This fulfills Genesis 9:26,27 which tells us that Canaan shall be the servant of both Shem and Japheth. The Canaanites were captured by both Shemites, Israel, and Japhethites, Philistines.

It is claimed by some that a few Canaanites recouped and intermarried with Phoenicians in Carthage and then ceased to exist after the Third Punic War (149 BC), which destroyed the city-state of Carthage and the Phoenicians as a people. This much is certain: the Canaanites ceased to exist long before the Christian church began. The “curse  of Canaan” never related to all the people of Africa. The “curse of Canaan” is dead and buried, yet some insist on resurrecting it.

When we investigate our world, we see that God has put in place a gene pool that has made possible a whole panorama of color and shapes in the flower world and in the breeds of animals that are possible. The same is true with the human race. We have a spectrum of profiles and colors, as this seems to have been God’s plan from the beginning. We don’t have to explain it; we only need to accept it. Some arrogantly suggest that the descendants of Shem and Japheth are farther up the ladder because they have a superior intelligence than the descendants of Ham. We can be sure that the devil is behind this type of absurd reasoning since Acts 17:26 tells us “that God made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth….”

In conclusion, Genesis 9:24,25 says nothing about a “curse on Ham.” It just mentions a “curse on Canaan.” The “curse of Canaan” is not that he and his descendants would be black and serve the descendants of Japheth and Shem. All indications are that the Canaanites were light brown in skin color. The “curse of Canaan” was not that his skin was black, but that because his descendants would become so grossly immoral that God would need to have Israel destroy them so there would be some conscience left in the Canaanites for God through Christ to appeal to in the Kingdom on earth.