Race and Noah (6)

Scripture informs us sufficiently enough that God has made natural differences among the races of mankind beyond the mere color of skin.

In my previous five articles, I discussed various matters preliminary to the doctrine of race. These articles set forth important groundwork for the average American Christian to better receive my view of race. However, in this article, I begin a new section wherein I deal with the topic of race directly.

Introduction

The great motto of our egalitarian age is that all men—peoples, nations, races—are equal. The modern egalitarian refuses, ignoring common sense, known history, and Scripture, to acknowledge natural and real differences among mankind by insisting that the differences that we do see are merely a matter of “skin tone.” But is this true?

Scripture informs us sufficiently enough that God has made natural distinctions among mankind beyond the mere color of skin. Yes, there is one human race created in the image of God. But, as I have pointed out in a previous article, it is appropriate to also speak of at least three races of men (Japhethites, Hamites and Shemites) who have real differences and natural inequalities. In other words, God has not endowed the three races of men equally. To some God has blessed more than others, both spiritually and naturally. Although all men are created in the image of God, and although, under the New Testament, the gospel is for all nations, they are not all equal in natural capacities nor have been dealt with equally by God in His providence.

The Scripture which most clearly demonstrates this natural and spiritual inequality is Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27. After Ham treated his father spitefully, and his other sons treated him respectfully, Noah awoke from his wine and, by divine inspiration, gave the following prophecy regarding the future of mankind. Read carefully:

“25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

What follows is not intended to be a full exposition and application of Genesis 9:25-27. Instead, I intend to show two things. First, this passage ought not to be limited to merely covenantal or spiritual realities but also to have natural implications. Second, the races of men are not all equally endowed by God with natural gifts. This endowment is not a matter of creation, but of providence. As Shedd said, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”¹

In showing these two things, I will ask a series of questions, make one clarification, and along the way provide quotes from respected Christian theologians and commentators from the past who agree with my exegesis.

Who did Noah Curse? – “Cursed be Canaan”

The most popular position held by commentators today is that Noah cursed only one of the four sons of Ham—Canaan. The are a few reasons for this position. First, the inspired text only mentions Canaan and not Ham. At first glance, this seems decisive to the question. The second pertains to the reasons for cursing Canaan and not Ham. These advocates argue several reasons why only Canaan was mentioned. First, God, who is merciful, chose to limit the curse to just one son. Second, Canaan is assumed to be the youngest son of Ham, and therefore, some say that Ham was the youngest son of Noah and thus God cursed in like pattern. Third, Canaan is assumed to have a similar sinful disposition like Ham. This makes sense because we are later told that the Canaanites were perverse people like Ham (Deut 9:5). Oddly enough, this line of reasoning supports more of a “Kinist” concept in the passing down of the traits of the fathers. However, the reasons they give for why Noah only cursed Canaan are speculative and overlook how God normally works through a covenant framework. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Noah only cursed Canaan, we must also acknowledge that the text just does not tell us why he does so.

However, the better position is that Noah’s curse fell upon Ham and all his descendants. I will give reasons for this position, explain why only Canaan was mentioned and provide a few respected Christian commentators who agree with me.

First, the position that all of Ham’s descendants were cursed is consistent with the parallel blessing upon all of Shem’s and Japheth’s descendants. All of Shem’s descendants were blessed to have as their father—faithful Shem. Although the covenantal blessings would only be fully realized in the line of Abraham and eventually in Judah (from which Christ came), all Shem’s descendants would benefit from having Shem as their father. A general observation from the history of Shem’s race is that the false religions that would later arise from his descendants had more light than the paganism of Ham’s descendants (largely Africans). Also, Japheth’s blessing was for all his race and, as I will later point out, his descendants were part of the geographic enlargement and most would later come into the visible church (the tents of Shem).

It is also important to note that, within all three of Noah’s son, there is disparity. Some sons of Japheth are more enlarged than others (Europeans), some sons of Shem are more blessed than others (Abraham’s line), and some sons of Ham are more cursed than others (Egypt was obviously more advanced than the many pagan tribes of Cush or Phut).

The second reason why all of Ham’s descendants were cursed is based upon the principles of covenant theology. When a federal head acted publicly, all those whom the federal head represented would be impacted by either his obedience or disobedience. All of Adam’s descendants (by ordinary generation) were cursed with sin. David’s sin, in conducting the census (2 Sam 24), impacted the whole nation. Christ’s obedience is imputed to all those who are His by faith (1 Cor 15:22). It would be strange, especially this early in the history of redemption and special revelation, for God to set a precedent that He would not normally follow. It is possible that He was showing mercy to Ham in only cursing Canaan’s line. Indeed, God is a merciful God and delights in mercy (Mic 7:18), but I think covenant theology and the principle of a federal head acting for all whom he represents, should take the precedence.

The third reason for this interpretation is that it best agrees with history. What is the history of all of Ham’s descendants? This will become clearer when I deal with the content of the curse later in this article, but for now it is helpful to say one word. All of Ham’s descendants would prove to be subjugated to the other two lines. It took time for many parts of this prophecy to take place. Therefore, the power of ancient Egypt and the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10) does not disprove it. As history develops, we can all see how Ham’s descendants have been subjugated to the more powerful nations coming from Japheth and Shem. The Hamite inhabitants of North Africa would later be subjugated by the Muslims in the 6^th century A.D. The nations of Africa (Ham’s line) would be colonized (and improved) by the sons of Japheth (Europeans). Even today, Africa contains a series of third-world countries except for maybe the Muslim (Shemite) nations in the north, and the nation of South Africa formerly ruled by descendants of the Dutch (Japhethites). History is key to interpreting prophecy. Try understanding the prophecies of the book of Daniel without knowing the history of the Medes, Persians, Greeks and Romans. For my partial-preterist and historicist friends, this also pertains to interpreting Revelation. It is the same with this prophecy.

Even if one believes that the curse fell on Canaan’s line only, still it must be noted that Ham’s other three sons (Mizraim, Cush, and Phut) were neither blessed nor cursed. If you stop and think about it, this lands us in the same place. It makes Ham’s other sons bear a “functional” curse, namely, in that they were not blessed like Japheth and Shem. The fact that they were not blessed, helps us understand the centuries of history that followed after this curse up to the modern day.

However, it is better to say that the curse of subjugation fell on all of Ham’s descendants, not just Canaan. And it is important to note that this opinion (that Ham was cursed and not just Canaan) was not originated by Southern slaveholders. There is a firm witness to this position among the early reformers and even from modern writers who were against the African slave trade (see quotes below). I do not believe this text is important in discussing slavery. Dabney said it best in his Defence of Virginia, “It is proper that we should say, in conclusion, that this passage of Scripture is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in this argument. Others more decisive will follow.”²

Why was Canaan mentioned and not Ham?

It seems that in Noah’s curse, the reason why only Canaan was mentioned was to reinforce the covenantal principle. I will explain. This event was early in divine revelation, and it seems appropriate to believe that God wanted to reinforce that all the seed of all three of these men would be impacted by the merit or demerit of their representative and patriarch. One may then ask, “So why did he only use Canaan’s name?”

We have reasons to believe that Canaan was the firstborn of Ham. No place in Scripture gives their birth order and if we go off the order of their names, this could indicate that Canaan was the youngest (see Gen 10:6), but his being positioned last could also mean that Canaan was the most cursed and degenerate. However, if we consider the fact that twice in the preceding text, Moses tells us, “Ham is the father of Canaan”—this point becomes more helpful (vv.18, 22). It seems likely that Canaan was mentioned because he was the first offspring after the Flood.

Consider that, although the flow of the narrative suggests a short amount of time from the flood abating to Noah’s prophecy, we still need to leave time for Noah to build a vineyard and to grow vines. Gen 9:20 says, “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.” I am not sure how long this took, but it is conceivable that, in the meantime, Ham’s wife gave birth. Furthermore, the Scripture clearly states that only 8 were saved in the flood (1 Peter 3:20). There must have been sometime between the floods abating and Noah’s sin. It seems likely that Ham had Canaan first and Noah wanted to make clear that the merits and demerits of his sons would pass on to his offspring. Thus, he mentions Canaan’s name, indicating that his descendants would be included in the curse. The others were not born yet, but the curse would fall on them also. My reasons here are a bit speculative, but it is no different than when others who speculate on why only Canaan was cursed. The text does not directly tell us either way, therefore, to determine God’s reason, we refer to good and necessary consequence and my view also considers the mention of Canaan’s name in the preceding text.

A more helpful reason why only Canaan was mentioned, and not Ham, is based upon a pattern we see in Scripture. Sometimes when a certain person commits a horrible sin, his name is omitted. Bethsheba, who ought to be seen as a harlot who did not cry out in the city when David approached her (Deut 22:23-24), had her name omitted from the line of Christ (Matt 1:6). Pekah, who was a wicked King of Israel and aligned himself against Judah, is often not mentioned by name because of his wickedness. His name was undesirable. Instead, we see “the son of Remaliah” instead of his name (see Isa 7:4-5, 8-9). Furthermore, it must be noted that although Ham and Pekah’s name are used in the inspired text, when the text records the words of holy men, the holy men omit the name of the wicked person.

This is the same type of thing that occurs today when a wife refers to her ex-husband. A disgruntled ex-wife may refer to “his father” instead of her ex-husband’s name. The name is unpleasant to her and so she uses another way of describing him. The same thing occurs in Scripture. Because Ham was so wicked, his name was omitted from the mouth of godly Noah.

Finally, another reason is given by Matthew Poole who argued that there could be an ellipsis in the text which omits the phrase “father of.” This would make the text read, “Cursed be the father of Canaan.” The avid Bible reader would know that this is a common Hebraism. This Hebraism was also carried over into the Greek New Testament. Anyone with a King James Version can simply note the words in italics in the following passages (2 Sam 21:19, Matt 4:21, John 19:25). For example in Acts 7:16, “And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.”

Quotes regarding the curse falling on all of Ham’s descendants:

Below are a few respectable commentators who assert that all of Ham’s descendants were cursed, not just Canaan:

1. Matin Luther, the famous reformer (1843-1546):

“Ham is cursed by his father… Great is the wrath of the Holy Spirit which here prompts him to say of Ham, “A servant of servants shall he be;” that is, the lowest and vilest of slave….How, then, was it true that Ham was cursed and Shem was blessed?”³

He then goes on to elaborate clearly that Ham was cursed.

2. John Calvin, the famous reformer (1509-1564):

“And that is to say, Ham is cursed first, as if the words were framed this way: God is not content to punish Ham, who offended, but God’s rigour and severity will have to extend further, until it reaches ten generations and God shows from age to age that that lineage is an abomination to him. That, then, is how Ham is here included and is even the first. The text adds that Ham will, in his entire prosperity, share in the ingratitude he had committed against his father in such a villainous and ignoble act….The first thing, in a word, that we have to remember about this passage is that God wanted to punish Ham in all his lineage….so it is with good reason that such a sentence is pronounced on Ham and his entire lineage…Therefore, let us note that when it says here that Ham will be cursed with his entire lineage, God displays his vengeance to instruct children… We see later the children who were descended from Ham. Why does God not curse them? The situation is common to them all and does not apply to one more than the other.”⁴

3. Henry Ainsworth, the English nonconformist clergyman (1571-1622):

“But Ham is not exempted hereby from the curse, although his son be named: as Shem is not exempted from the blessing in the next verse, where ‘Jehovah his God’ is named. So Jacob is said to bless Joseph, Gen. 48:15. When Joseph’s children had their blessing, ver. 16, etc. And the curse of the wicked, reacheth unto ‘ the fruit of their body,’ Deut. 28:18.”⁵

4. Matthew Poole (1624–1679), the prominent English Nonconformist theologian and Puritan minister:

He gives several reasons for why Canaan was mentioned and not Ham but implies the curse is upon all Ham’s descendants:

“When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the curse, but rather more deeply plunged into it, whilst he is pronounced accursed, not only in his person … but also in his posterity… And though Ham had more sons, yet he may be here described by his relation to Canaan, because in him the curse was more fixed and dreadful, reaching to his utter extirpation, whilst the rest of Ham’s posterity in after-ages were blessed with the saving knowledge of the gospel.”⁶ [8]

5. W. G. Blaikie, the Free Church of Scotland minister (1820-1899):

“Though the curse of Ham was formally pronounced on Canaan alone, it has been reflected more or less on the other branches of his family; the black-skinned African became a synonym for weakness and degradation.”⁷

6. W.G.T. Shedd, the “Old School” Northern American Presbyterian (1820-1984):

He distinguishes between the sin of Adam and the sin of Ham, but in his analysis he clearly reveals his view on this text:

“The sufferings that came upon the descendants of Ham because of his individual sin were not retributive, like those which come upon the whole human race because of the one specific sin of Adam or like those which come upon an individual for his own transgressions. Ham’s descendants have suffered for centuries on account of their ancestor’s sin, but have not been under eternal condemnation on account of it.”⁸

What was Noah’s Curse? – “…a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

We now transition to the second exegetical question of the text. The most popular position today on the meaning of the curse is that it pointed to the later destruction of the Canaanites in the conquest by Joshua and the Israelites. Again, this makes initial sense because the conquest of Joshua was against the inhabitants of the land known by this early progenitor. The conquest of Canaan is also a significant part in the history of redemption and in the history of God’s Old Testament people. Moses could have been encouraging the Israelites to follow Joshua into the promised land. However, it falls short of the complete meaning of this curse for good and decisive reasons that leave no question on the matter.

First, Canaan was to be a “servant of servants” not “the annihilated of the annihilated.” A “servant of servants” is a phrase that does not denote utter annihilation. I believe that the destruction of the Canaanites is part of the broader subjugation of Ham’s line, but it does not encompass the entire curse. Yes, the Gibeonites would become Israel’s slaves, but this was not commanded by Moses and was a mistake by Joshua and the leadership.

Second, Japheth is involved in this curse on Canaan and yet had nothing to do with Joshua’s conquest of the holy land. Gen 9:27 reads, “God shall enlarge Japheth … and Canaan shall be his servant.” Japheth’s dominance of Canaan was fulfilled, in part, by the destruction of Hannibal’s (a Canaanite) Carthage by a Roman General in 202 BC. But no Japhethite was involved in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, therefore, could not have completely fulfilled that curse.

Third, the Bible attributes the reasons for the conquest of the Canaanites to their own wickedness and to God’s later promise to Abraham, but never to Noah’s curse. Consider Deut 9:5, “Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

If someone would like to argue that the wickedness mentioned in Deut 9:5 harkens back to Ham’s wickedness transferred to Canaan, then that same person must acknowledge a “Kinist” view of the passing down of the traits (moral and spiritual, not just physical) to their descendants. And I do not think my opponents desire to admit such a thing. In conclusion, I acknowledge that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua was part of Noah’s curse, but it falls short to describe it entirely or even its primary import.

So what was Noah’s Curse? The curse for Ham’s impiety is the subjugation of his whole line to the other two lines of Noah. I define subjugation as “the action of bringing someone or something under domination or control.” The phrase “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” gives that import. The phrase “a servant of servants” is a Hebraism we find in other places.⁹ Its most basic import is that they would be the lowest of slaves. But considering the rest of the prophecy, and of history, we ought not to limit this to mere slavery. Many of Ham’s descendants would never be involuntary servants to Noah’s other sons (not even now). However, they would all politically be subjugated (as the prophecy unfolded in time and in world history) to the other two lines.

It is strange to me that so many men only see the conquest of Canaan in this curse. They seem to ignore that this curse involves Japheth also, v.27 “God shall enlarge Japheth, … and Canaan shall be his servant.” The sons of Japheth had literally nothing to do with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. It cannot only have reference to this conquest. And we must not forget about the Muslims either. The Muslim invaders of traditional Canaanite and Hamite lands of the Middle East and Northern Africa are from the line of Shem. In the 6^th century A.D. they invaded, decimated and overran these parts of the world and went all the way to the Strait of Gibraltar and almost conquered Europe until the battle of Tours in 732 A.D. This Muslim invasion is, therefore, part of the prophecy and part of the subjugation of Ham’s line to Shem’s line. The conquest of Joshua was only part of the curse.

What was Japheth’s Enlargement? – “God shall enlarge Japheth…”

This is the third exegetical question of significance in Noah’s prophecy and involves one of the more cryptic parts of the prophecy. Noah says in v.27, “God shall enlarge Japheth…” It is a play on words for the verb “enlarge” and the name “Japheth” have the same Hebrew root. What does it mean?

A less popular interpretation (and yet one that has some following) is to connect this phrase with the next. These commentators suggest it means that God shall persuade Japheth to believe the gospel and enter the visible church (tents of Shem). They say this on plausible grounds. The verb “enlarge” is often used in Scripture to convey the idea of influence upon the mind – either negatively (deceive) or positively (persuade).¹⁰ In Hosea 2:14¹¹ it takes this positive connotation, “Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.” However, I think this exegetical point, although it has its merits, also falls short of the full import of this text and for a few reasons.

I remind my readers of the importance of history in interpreting prophecy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the sons of Japheth have developed the most dominant and advanced civilizations in history. Again, it took some time for this prophecy to take full effect. I do not deny the powers of Egypt or Babylon. But by the time of Christ, the Greeks and the Romans had conquered the world. After the time of Christ, the sons of Japheth would continue to advance. Since then, the West has led the world in technology and civilization building. It is true that, at one time, the sun never set on the British empire. Spain and Portugal were also leaders in colonization. There are good reasons to believe that the Chinese and Japanese are also Japhethites. If so, then this only supports the “geographical” enlargement point of view. And currently, two of the greatest nations in the world are Russia and America; and the international language of business is English. Is it not reasonable to think that God would give some indication of such a large and long-lasting dominance? I think so. Thus, considering history, we ought to understand this word as the KJV translators have left it in our Bible. Although the word is used in Scripture to mean “to open” in a cognitive manner, it can also legitimately mean “to open” in a spatial manner. Thus, the idea would be that Japheth would be geographically enlarged. They would expand their physical footprint to cover Europe, Russia, parts of Asia (and probably America). Then, in the formation of the United States, further West and, in the case of the British colonization, even to Africa and Asia.

But how did this “enlargement” occur? Did this occur by supernatural intervention like in the case of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan or was it through ordinary providence and normal causes? It occurred through normal means. As some commentators have put it, the sons of Japheth are industrious, intelligent and vigorous people—after the gospel came but also before the gospel came. The only reasonable way to explain this massive expansion is due to a natural endowment of God. As the Westminster Annotations on this text say, White men became “lords of the world”¹² because they had superior gifting by God in natural things (intelligence, virtue, industry, etc). As I mentioned earlier, this endowment was not a result of creation or some supernatural intervention of God upon Japheth after the flood. As we already saw above, Shedd says, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”¹³ I will say more about how the variations of mankind developed in a forthcoming article, but for now we can be satisfied with Shedd’s explanation.

Quotes regarding Japheth’s Enlargement

1. Phillip Henry (1631-1696), a Presbyterian minister and father of the famous commentator Matthew Henry:

“God shall enlarge Japheth as to the things of this life ; but in spiritual things Shem shall have the pre-eminence. Japheth shall have the larger portion, but Shem shall have the sweeter.”¹⁴

2. Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) the prominent English Baptist theologian and pastor:

“God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. If this part of the prophecy have respect to temporal dominion, it seems to refer to the posterity of Japheth being formerly straitened, but in the latter ages of the world enabled to extend their conquests, which exactly corresponds with history. For more than two thousand years the empire of the civilized world has in a manner been in the hands of the posterity of Japheth. First the Greeks, after them the Romans, and since the declension of their empire, the different powers of Europe, have entered into the richest possessions of Asia, inhabited by the children of Shem. Add to this, their borders have lately been enlarged beyond the Atlantic, and bid fair to extend over the continent of America.”¹⁵

3. Patrick Fairbarin (1805-1874) Minister of the Free Church of Scotland:

“It obviously, indeed, designates his stock generally as the most spreading and energetic of the three-pre-eminent, so far as concerns diffusive operations and active labor in occupying the lands and carrying forward the business of the world and thus naturally tending, as the event has proved, to push their way, even in a civil and territorial respect, into the tents of Shem… In a word, it was through the line of Shem that the gifts of grace and the blessings of salvation were more immediately to flow-the Shemites were to have them at first hand; but the descendants of Japheth were also to participate largely in the good. And by reason of their more extensive ramifications and more active energies, they were to be mainly instrumental in working upon the condition of the world.”¹⁶

4. Thomas Murphy (1823-1900) an American Presbyterian minister:

“This enlargement is the most striking point in the history of Japheth, who is the progenitor of the inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and America, except the region between the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Euxine, the Caspian, and the mountains beyond the Tigris, which was the main seat of the Shemites. This expansive power refers not only to the territory and the multitude of the Japhethites, but also to their intellectual and active faculties. The metaphysics of the Hindoos, the philosophy of the Greeks, the military prowess of the Romans, and the modern science and civilization of the world, are due to the race of Japheth. And though the moral and the spiritual were first developed among the Shemites, yet the Japhethites have proved themselves capable of rising to the heights of these lofty themes, and have elaborated that noble form of human speech, which was adopted, in the providence of God, as best fitted to convey to mankind that further development of Old Testament truth which is furnished in the New.”

It is of note that he seems to call the “Hindoos” the sons of Japheth. I am not sure about this statement, but it seems plausible that upper-caste whiter Indians are historically Aryan.

5. Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) Dutch-American Scholar and father of J.G Vos:

“…The territorial rendering of ‘enlarge’ carrying with it the reference of ‘him’ to Japheth 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 Japheth. 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.”¹⁷

6. J. G. Vos (1903-1983) the Reformed Presbyterian minister:

“It is probable that the literal meaning of “enlarge” is intended. The meaning, then, would be that God will enable the descendants of Japheth to occupy large portions of the world.”¹⁸

What does it mean to “dwell in the tents of Shem”?

Commentators largely agree that this phrase has redemptive implications with the engrafting in of the Gentiles into the visible church. Some refer this also to the Japhethite expansion and cite the conquest of Shemite lands by the Greeks and the Romans. But this is short-sighted. The verb “to dwell” that is used here has the connotation of friendship and fellowship. It is the verb commonly used for God to dwell in the tabernacle and the temple. Some cite 1 Chr 5:10 as a reason to take this phrase in a hostile sense,¹⁹ “And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east land of Gilead.” The problem is that the verb “dwelt” in 1 Chr 5:10 is different than the verb in Gen 9:27. In 1 Chr 5:10, the verb could just as easily be translated “inhabited” and thus does carry a negative connotation.

Therefore, we ought to see how this phrase predicts what we all know happened after the resurrection of Christ. The gospel spread west. Paul went to Rome and to Spain, etc. Although the Roman church would later apostatize, and the Greek orthodox would follow a similar fate, it does not change the fact that the Christian church primarily took root in the west and among a large portion of Japheth. We also should not forget the Protestant Reformation. Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Knox recovered the purity of the ancient faith and these were all sons of Japheth. Luther even cited this verse to explain the reformation in Germany.²⁰

Additionally, we ought also to remember the promises of Scripture that will be revealed to Abraham and in the New Testament. Just because Ham is not given any spiritual blessing in this prophecy does not mean his line is excluded permanently (or even in the Old Testament) from salvation (Rahab was a Canaanite and so were the Gibeonites). Christ commanded his disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). We do not condemn the Hamite to perpetual spiritual doom. Instead, it has been (and ought still to be) the conviction of many White Protestant Christians to bring the gospel to Africa and the Muslim-dominated Middle East. Thus, just because only Shem and Japheth receive a spiritual blessing, does not permanently exclude Hamites from salvation in Christ.

Does this prophecy have only redemptive implications?

O. Palmer Robertson wrote a scholarly article in 1998 which, in large part, was written to claim, “that the passage cannot be interpreted purely or principally in a politico-ethnic sense —particularly as it relates to the new covenant era… instead it is the curse of being separated from the redemptive activity of God that is implied in the passage.”²¹ However, the question is not one of “either or,” but “both and.” In his article, he suggests subtly that it does have natural implications, but in his emphasis, he takes it away.

I do not deny that the redemptive-historical interpretation has the main place. The Bible is not a book on Ethnology, but a book on Soteriology (the way of salvation through Christ). However, the interpretive habit of the day is to utterly ignore the natural implications of this passage. Because Robertson and others have correctly indicated the redemptive implications of this passage and connected it to the engrafting in of the Gentiles under the New Testament, I will not repeat that claim. I believe it. But what is needed now is to show that this prophecy also has natural implications for the races and nations of men.

The curse of Canaan “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” most certainly had spiritual implications. Some commentators worded it as an excommunication. Shem would have God for his God, not Ham and not Japheth (for quite some time). This is true and this is spiritual and redemptive. But it most certainly would also have natural implications. Besides the supernatural intervention of Joshua’s conquest, this part of the prophecy took place over time through normal means. The Shemite Muslim hordes would dominate other descendants of Canaan and the Hamites by their natural superiority in 6^th century. To ignore the politico-ethnic implications of this prophecy is an error. Furthermore, you have the statements I have already proven about Japheth’s enlargement. His dominion over large portions of the globe took place through natural means. History proves that Europeans were naturally superior to other men (especially Hamites), from the history of the Greeks and Romans, to that of the British Empire.

Robertson claimed, “So this prophecy provides a remarkable broadlined sketch of the history of the nations in relation to God’s purposes of redemption.”²² He is correct as far as he goes. The problem is that he does not go far enough and ignores the political and natural implications of the prophecy for mankind. As part of God’s purpose of redemption in this prophecy, there is also a natural endowment to the sons of Noah that is different and unequal.

Clarification: “Is White supremacy true?”

“White Supremacy” is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, sin in American society today. It may be true that, in the past, some who were called “White Supremacists” were guilty of sin. However, not all were or are sinful.

Today, it does not matter the character and testimony of a White supremacist. It does not matter how he has shown love to his fellow man in acts of service or in preaching the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). In our day of egalitarianism, as soon as someone identifies as a “White supremacist” they will be canceled, slandered, persecuted and even physically harmed. Truth is not as important as keeping the social egalitarianism of the day. You can call me a White supremacist if you like, but I prefer to be called a Race Realist. You can attribute all the sinful deeds of the KKK to me if you like. But it does not change the truth, and it would be uncharitable to me and those like me. I do not affirm everything that has ever been done by so-called “White supremacists,” and I acknowledge that some of the activity of such was indeed sinful (but suspect some of the reports of it have been embellished). But it is not a sin to state reality.

The White man has demonstrated a natural superiority over the other races ever since Alexander the Great, and that dominance does not seem to be fading. It is especially true if one includes parts of Asia (Japan and China) as sons of Japheth. Even among the liberals and atheistic elites—Whites are still leading although in an unbiblical direction. In so far as nature is concerned, they are dominant and trend-setters.

It may be that in the future; the Kings of the East will arise (Rev 16:12) to ascendency. After all, the Shemites were blessed and have a heritage of an advanced civilization (i.e. Saudi Arabia, India, etc). But I doubt that the sons of Ham will ever reach the same or superior place in civilization building as Japheth and Shem. This does not mean that every Shemite or Japhethite is naturally superior to every single Hamite. In this article, I speak in generalities (races, not individuals). Neither is every male stronger than every single female. Yet, we know what is true about the sexes generally (1 Peter 3:7). I freely acknowledge that Thomas Sowell is intelligent, but he is a rarity among the Black race. And even if the gospel were to permeate Africa and a revival and reformation was to occur in their Christian churches like in Europe in times past, it will not supply what nature has not given. As I elaborated in a previous article, the power of the Spirit in salvation focuses upon the soul on this side of heaven, not the body (see article 5 “Race and Grace”). Faith in Christ does not increase one’s natural capacity of intelligence, nor make someone an Olympic 100m sprinter. The Holy Spirit makes people godly, not smart or fast.

Furthermore, if someone has been endowed with more natural gifts, he ought to take heed to the exhortation of Paul (1 Cor 4:7) and boast not, “For who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” Let those who have been given much serve Christ more (Lk 12:48). Let them be humble and serve God with a due consideration of their talents (Matt 25:14-30). It is not a sign of godliness for White people to reject this natural heritage, instead it is laziness and ingratitude, and they will give an account for it. Let those who are less naturally endowed not covet others and be thankful for what they have (Col 3:15b). God has not made us equal, and we ought to submit to His providence and use all that we have for His glory.

Older commentators on the natural inequality among the races:

Below are quotes from the past that show how some respected Christian authors understood the inequality of the races. They speak about the races possessing different strengths and weaknesses which developed, not because gospel light changed their natural constitutions, but because they were made differently in the providence of God. Please note that only a few of the quotes come from a discussion of Gen 9:25-27, but the same point is still asserted.

1. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) said in his commentary on Gal 3:28-29:

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule. For we observe in the unity of faith that there are no such distinctions. Yet within the orders of this life they persist.”²³

2. Francis Turretin (1623–1687) was a Swiss-Italian Reformed theologian and one of the most influential figures in Protestant scholasticism during the 17th century.

“Nor if the law of nature makes all men equal with regard to nature does it follow that they are equal with regard to qualities and external condition.”²⁴

3. Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) was a beloved Scottish Presbyterian minister and theologian.

“The degree or order of subjection natural is a subjection in respect of gifts or age: so Aristotle (Politics 1.3) says, ‘Some are by nature servants.’ His meaning is good, that some gifts of nature, such as natural wisdom or aptitude to govern, have made some men of gold, fitter to command, and some of iron and clay, fitter to be servants and slaves...Aquinas (II-II. q. 57. art. 3). Driedo (De libert. Christ. bk.1, p. 8). following Aristotle, (Politics 7.14) hold, though man had never sinned, there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the less wise and weaker, not antecedent from nature, properly, but consequent, for the utility and good of the weaker, insofar as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger, which cannot be denied to have some ground in nature.”²⁵

How dare Rutherford say such things? Did he not know that such things would not be accepted by American culture in 2025? If someone objects and says that Rutherford is only speaking about individual men, then I retort, “Why limit the idea to mere individuals? Why cannot it not also be true among nations and races of men?” It seems to be only logical to do so, especially given known facts of world history.

4. John Calvin affirmed a prelapsarian inequality:

“If Adam stood upright, all men would be alike in their integrity. I do not now speak of special gifts: for there would have been, I allow, a difference of endowments had nature remained perfect; but as to eternal life the condition of all would have been the same.”²⁶

5. Albert Barnes (1798–1870) was a prominent American Presbyterian minister. Although his theological orthodoxy is up for question, it is still interesting to read his comments on Gal 3:28.

“[Gal 3:28] does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level “in regard to religion.” This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society.”²⁷ [27]

6. Charles Hodge (1797–1878) was a prominent American Presbyterian minister and theologian.

“It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.”²⁸

7. Charles Hodge wrote again:

“The Irish people have always been remarkable for their fidelity; the English for honesty; the Germans for truthfulness. These national traits, as revealed in individuals, are not the effect of self-discipline. They are innate, hereditary dispositions, as obviously as the physical, mental, or emotional peculiarities by which one people is distinguished from another. And yet by the common judgment of men this fact in no degree detracts from the moral character of these dispositions.”²⁹

8. Charles Hodge wrote again:

“It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits, is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation. No process of discipline or culture can transmute a Tatar into an Englishman, or an Irishman into a Frenchman. The Bourbons, the Hapsburgs, and other historical families, have retained and transmitted their peculiarities for ages. We may be unable to explain this, but we cannot deny it. No one is born an absolute man, with nothing but generic humanity belonging to him. Every one is born a man in a definite state, with all those characteristics physical, mental, and moral, which make up his individuality. There is nothing therefore in the doctrine of hereditary depravity out of analogy with providential facts.”³⁰

9. Philip Schaff (1819–1893) was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian, ecclesiastical historian, and ecumenical leader.

“Wherever the governmental idea holds the mercenary so completely in check and yields to the influence of Christian morality, it may be a wholesome training school for inferior races, as it is in fact with the African negroes, until they are capable to govern themselves.”³¹

Philip Schaff is no supporter of slavery, but he uses the words “inferior races” which proves both that he understood there to be races of men and inferior races.

10. W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894) an American Presbyterian theologian, biblical scholar, and professor said:

“The Hebrews were inferior to the Greeks and Romans in merely humanistic characteristics: inferior in literature, art and science. They produced very little in these provinces.”³²

“Redemption ... does not alter the finite nature of man.”³³

11. A.A. Hodge (1823-1886) was an influential American Presbyterian theologian, educator, and preacher. In this quote, he refers to a certain human principle that has implications for race and nations.

“The grand peculiarity of humanity is that while each individual is a free responsible moral agent, yet we constitute a race, reproduced under the law of generation, and each new-born agent is educated and his character formed under social conditions. Hence everywhere the free-will of the parent becomes the destiny of the child. Hence results the representative character of progenitors, and the inherited character and destiny of all races, nations, and families.”³⁴

12. A.A. Hodge also wrote:

“On the other hand, the presumptions of reason and the texts of Scripture must be interpreted in a sense consistent with the palpable facts of human history and of God’s daily providential dispensations. If it is unjust in principle for God to be partial in his distributions of spiritual good, it can be no less unjust for him to be partial in his distribution of temporal good. As, a matter of fact, however, we find that God in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty makes the greatest possible distinctions among men from birth, and independently of their own merits in the allotments both of temporal good and of the essential means of salvation. One child is born to health, honor, wealth, to the possession of a susceptible heart and conscience, and to all the best means of grace as his secure inheritance. Many others are born to disease, shame, poverty, an obtuse conscience and hardened heart, and absolute heathenish darkness and ignorance of Christ. If God may not be partial to individuals, why may he be partial to nations, and how can his dealings with heathen nations and the children of the abandoned classes in the nominally Christian cities be accounted for?”³⁵

13. J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) was a pivotal American Presbyterian theologian:

Timothy Cho reported Machen’s views on the nature of man in his online article dated in 2018. I do not know where Cho got this information, but I trust it to be an accurate reflection of Machen. Machen who was a Southern aristocrat. Cho says:

“Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, the head of Princeton Seminary at the time, is known for his writings against slavery and segregation. Machen writes of a two-hour argument with Warfield regarding the integration of the Princeton Seminary dormitories, of which he claims, “My total impression was that, despite his remarkable gifts… [Warfield] is bitterly lacking in appreciation of the facts of human nature.”³⁶

Although Cho writes to rebuke Machen, this information is helpful in knowing something about Machen’s mind. I have had a few conversations with men, especially those of British descent, who have not had daily interaction with the average African-American and I have walked away thinking the same thing as Machen—they lack much knowledge about human nature.

14. J. Gresham Machen, in a 1935 radio address entitled Life Founded upon Truth, he said:

“Frankly, I do not believe in the separate existence of an Oriental mind or an occidental mind or an ancient mind or a medieval mind or a modern mind. I do believe, indeed, that different races of mankind have different aptitudes or talents. It is perhaps that French writers have the special gift of clearness, while Germans are characterized by a power of metaphysical speculation and by a certain solidity and thoroughness of learning. It must be admitted, indeed, that some German writers are admirably clear and some French writers, on the other hand, are awfully muddled. But still I suppose it is true to a very considerable extent that clearness is especially a French virtue of style. I have a great respect also for the intellectual gifts of Oriental peoples.”³⁷

15. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, philosopher, and educator.

“Even as one star differs in brightness from another star; even as all physical bodies are not the same, but can be distinguished as a human body or an animal or a fish or a bird; even as in the state of glory there will be a diversity of gifts and strengths and various degrees of blessedness; so too the human race has unfolded on earth according to God’s will, in an endless diversity of persons and powers, relationships and capacities, talents and gifts, possessions and goods.”³⁸

16. Loraine Boettner (1901–1990) was an influential American theologian, teacher, and prolific author in the Reformed tradition. He wrote in 1932:

“Apart from this election of individuals to life, there has been what we may call a national election, or a divine predestination of nations and communities to a knowledge of true religion and to the external privileges of the Gospel. God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others. This form of election has been well illustrated in the Jewish nation, in certain European nations and communities, and in America. The contrast is very striking when we compare these with other nations such as China, Japan, India, etc.”³⁹

17. Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), in his comments on Noah’s prophecy in Gen 9 says:

“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.”⁴⁰

18. E.J. Young (1907-1968) was an influential American Presbyterian theologian, Old Testament scholar, and professor. He wrote in 1964:

“In our desire to make all men welcome in the church there is one fact that must not be overlooked. Men are not equal. There is danger of embracing the modern political doctrine of egalitarianism, a doctrine which is thoroughly unscriptural.”⁴¹

This quote is especially helpful for, as Young points out, this truth was largely assumed until more recent times.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the human race is an important issue in our day. Racial differences ought to be acknowledged. They ought also to be recognized according to what God has done through His providence—as Noah’s prophecy indicates. This includes not just the mere recognition of the idea of racial difference, but also the quantification of that difference objectively. Shem was blessed, Japheth was enlarged and Ham was cursed. I have not elaborated on various specific differences in this article, but what I have done is provide a rationale and biblical defense of the idea itself.

But, to better feel the weight of racial difference and the error of racial egalitarianism, we turn from arguments from Scripture to arguments from nature. What does world history, good science and honest experience teach us about racial difference? This will be the topic of the next article.

1. Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003. 379.

2. Robert Lewis Dabney, A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1977), 104.

3. Martin Luther, Commentary on Genesis, trans. J. Theodore Mueller, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 2, Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960), 317-318, https://archive.org/details/commentaryongene02luth/page/328/mode/1up.

4. John Calvin, Sermons on Genesis: Chapters 1-11, trans. Rob Roy McGregor (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009), 791, 794, 796, 797.

5. Henry Ainsworth, Annotations on the Pentateuch (London: John Bellamie, 1627), 56, https://archive.org/details/annotationsonpen01ains/page/56/mode/1up.

6. Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol. 1, Genesis–Job (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 25.

7. William G. Blaikie, Manual of Bible History (New York: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1887), 42, https://archive.org/details/manualofbiblehisusa00blai/page/44/mode/2up.

8. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3rd ed., ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 561.

9. Ecclesiastes 1:2 is an example of this Hebraism, “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.”

10. From my research, here are all the places where that same Hebrew verb is used in the Old Testament. 26 times in 21 passages to include Gen 9:27. All except two have a negative connotation to deceive or entice. Prov 25:15 - carrying the idea of persuade; Hos 2:16, - lure, persuade (v.14 in English); Deut 11:16; Job 31:27; Job 5:2 ; Prov 20:19; Hos 7:11; Job 31:9; Jer 20:7; Prov 24:28; Ezek 14:9 x2; Ex 22:15 (v.16 in English); Jdg 14:15; Jdg 16:5; 2 Sam 3:25;); Prov 1:10; Prov 16:29; 1 Ki 22:20,21,22; 2 Chr 18:19-21; Ps 78:36; Gen 9:27 – enlarge.

11. In my Hebrew Bible, the versification is different. Check 2:16.

12. “…for the European Gentiles, especially the Romans of the posterity of Japhet extended their temporal Empire so far as to account themselves Lords of the world.” Westminster Assembly, Annotations upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament: Wherein the Text Is Explained, Doubts Resolved, Scriptures Paralleled, and Various Readings Observed (London: Evan Tyler, 1657). 81. https://archive.org/details/annotationsupona00down/page/n80/mode/1up

13. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 379.

14. Henry, Philip. An Exposition Upon the First Eleven Chapters of the Book of Genesis. Edited by J. Lee. London: Joseph Ogle Robinson, 1839. 272. https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_exposition_upon_the_first_eleven_chap/9WkEAAAAQAAJ.

15. Fuller, Andrew. Expository Discourses on the Book of Genesis. London: T. Hamilton, 1806. 77-78. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/expositorydiscou00full/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater.

16. Fairbairn, Patrick. Typology of Scripture: Two Volumes in One. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1989. 291.

17. Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. 1948. Reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2015. 58.

18. Vos, J.G. Genesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Crown and Covenant Publications, 2006. 167.

19. O. Palmer Robertson, “Current Critical Questions Concerning the ‘Curse of Ham,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 2 (1998): 184, https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_41_41-2_41-2-pp177-188-JETS.pdf.

20. John L. Thompson, ed., Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I, Genesis 1–11, Reformation Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 317. “The fact that by the mercy of God the Word of the Gospel has begun to shine for Germany is due to this prophecy about Japheth, and so what Noah foretold at that time is being fulfilled today. Even though we are not of the seed of Abraham, we nevertheless live in the tents of Shem, and we have the benefits of the fulfilled promises concerning Christ.”

21. O. Palmer Robertson, “Current Critical Questions Concerning the ‘Curse of Ham,’” 183.

22. Robertson, 187.

23. Who Is My Neighbor?: An Encyclopedia of Natural Relations, 2nd ed. (Whitefish, MT: Western Front Books, 2025), 38.

24. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 2:13.

25. Rutherford, Samuel. Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince: A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982. Question: 13, 50-51.

26. See Calvin’s commentary on Malachi 1:2-6.

27. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/galatians/3.htm

28. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. 1871–1873. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970. Vol 2, 112.

29. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 112-113.

30. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 253-254.

31. Schaff, Philip. Slavery and the Bible: A Tract for the Times. Chambersburg, PA: M. Kieffer & Co., 1861. https://archive.org/details/slaverybibletrac00scha/page/24/mode/1up.

32. Shedd, William G. T. Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. Edited by Alan W. Gomes. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003. 99.

33. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 663.

34. Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. Reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999, 616.

35. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 226.

36. https://faithfullymagazine.com/tale-of-two-machens/

37. Smith, Frank. Race, Church, and Society (p. 57). Kindle Edition.

38. Herman Bavinck, The Christian Family, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian’s Library Press, 2012), 105, ePub.

39. Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1991. 88.

40. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2015), 56.

41. The Presbyterian Guardian 33, no. 8 (October 1964). p.130. https://opc.org/cfh/guardian/Volume_33/1964-10.pdf.