Versión en Español

Contents

Alleged Discrepancies

Article Reprints

Audio Resources

Bible Bullets

Darwin Day Debate

Decisive Designs

E-Books

“In the News”

Reason & Revelation

Research Articles

Scripturally Speaking

Sensible Science

Resources

Discovery for Kids

Examine the Evidence

Home Study Courses

Feedback

EBGlobal

A.P. Information

About AP

Contact AP

Copyright Statement

Help AP

Privacy Statement

Speaking Schedules

A.P. Scientists and
Auxiliary Writers


Usage Guidelines








Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
February 1998 - 18[2]:14

The Prophecy of Nations
by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.
[Español]
Printer version | Email this article

After the Flood, Noah prophesied on the future of Shem, Canaan (one of Ham’s sons), and Japheth (Genesis 9:25-27). Chapter 10 follows up with a list of peoples descended from each patriarch.

Ever since the age of exploration, European scholars have been tempted to associate these three lines of descent with three major “racial” groups: Asians, Africans, and Indo-Europeans (or Mongoloids, Negroids, and Caucasoids). For a few, the motivations were less than pure. The reasoning went along these lines:

  1. “Ham” means black.
  2. Africans are black-skinned.
  3. Therefore, Africans must be Hamites.
  4. Noah prophesied that the Hamites would be servants of servants.
  5. “Servant of servants” means “slave.”
  6. Therefore, Hamites would be slaves.
  7. Therefore (from 3 and 6), Africans would be slaves.

It was only a short step from here to conclude that Europeans had a God-given right to enslave and otherwise exploit the African peoples.

This only goes to show how a seemingly valid argument can be totally fallacious. It fails on factual grounds, specifically, the facts of the Bible. First, like many proper names, “Ham” has no obvious meaning. The Hebrew word may have something to do with warmth or heat, and is used poetically of Egypt (e.g., Psalm 78:51), but the word suggests nothing about skin color. Second, “servant of servants” may mean the greatest of servants or, more likely, a servant of other servants, but there is no proof for its meaning “slave.” Third, the people who made this sort of argument were seeking to defend exploitation and oppression of sub-Saharan Africans (e.g., South African apartheid and American slavery). However, of all Ham’s sons (Genesis 10:6), only Cush is associated with “Negroid” peoples—in this case, the Nubians of northeast Africa. Even then, we see that Cush became the father of Nimrod, who founded the non-African nations of Babel and Assyria (Genesis 10:10-11). Mizraim, another son, is the Hebrew name for Egypt (see Genesis 50:11), and from Canaan came the Canaanites. African nations may have come from Ham, but “Ham” does not mean “African.” Finally, the whole idea of reading slavery into this passage breaks down with a quick glance at history: both the Romans and Vikings enslaved fellow Europeans.

The range of Ham’s descendents gives us a good reason for rejecting any attempt to make the three sons of Noah match some arbitrary division of races. The point, of course, is that the Table of Nations served a theological purpose. Its audience had to know their place in God’s redemptive history. Those readers and listeners were the people who followed Moses out of Egypt. They needed to know why God blessed Shem and Japheth, and cursed Canaan. They needed to know that their God, Yahweh, was the God of their ancestor, Shem. And they needed to know that the Promised Land would belong to them, and not to the descendents of Canaan.



Copyright © 1998 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org



Web site engine code is Copyright © 2003 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.071 Seconds