Introduction

Good morning, Church family! Today, we're going to explore a fascinating and often misunderstood story from the Old Testament, the Curse of Ham. We’ll talk about its connection to God's judgment on Ham's descendants and the impact of that curse on the Cushites.

I recently read a quote by A.W. Tozer that I believe is quite relevant to our topic today. He said, "An honest man with an open Bible and a pad and pencil is sure to find out what is wrong with him very quickly." So let's be honest with ourselves, open our Bibles, and allow the Holy Spirit to lead us as we examine the Scripture passages for today: Genesis 9:20-27, Galatians 3:28, and Proverbs 6:16-17.

The Curse

The Curse of Ham, or more accurately, the curse of Canaan, is a story that has been the subject of much debate and controversy throughout the centuries. It is a story that has been used to justify various forms of discrimination and oppression, particularly the enslavement of African people. However, a closer examination of the text reveals that the curse was not directed at Ham, but rather at his son, Canaan. This distinction is crucial for understanding the true meaning and implications of this story.

The story begins with Noah, a righteous man who found favor in the eyes of the Lord and was chosen to build the ark and save his family from the great flood. After the floodwaters receded, Noah and his family began to repopulate the earth. Noah planted a vineyard, and one day, he became drunk from the wine he had produced. In his drunken state, he lay naked in his tent, and his son Ham saw his father's nakedness. Instead of covering his father, Ham went and told his brothers, Shem and Japheth, about what he had seen. Shem and Japheth, however, took a garment and walked backward into the tent, covering their father without looking upon his nakedness.

When Noah awoke and learned what had happened, he was furious with Ham and pronounced a curse upon his son Canaan, saying, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." This curse was not directed at Ham himself, but rather at his son Canaan and his descendants. It is important to note that Ham had other sons, Cush, Mizraim, and Put, who were not cursed. This indicates that the curse was not a blanket condemnation of all of Ham's descendants, but rather a specific judgment upon Canaan and his lineage.

There are several aspects of this story that warrant further exploration. First, it is important to consider the nature of Ham's offense. Some scholars argue that Ham's sin was not merely seeing his father's nakedness, but rather that he committed some form of sexual violation against his father. This interpretation is based on the Hebrew word for "see" used in the passage, which can also mean "to look upon with lust" or "to uncover." However, other scholars maintain that Ham's sin was simply his disrespectful behavior in not covering his father and then gossiping about it to his brothers. Regardless of the exact nature of Ham's offense, it is clear that his actions were considered shameful and dishonorable.

Another aspect of this story that requires examination is the reason for the curse being placed upon Canaan, rather than Ham himself. Some scholars suggest that the curse was directed at Canaan because he was the one who would carry on Ham's sinful behavior and attitude. Others argue that the curse was a form of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," as mentioned in Exodus 20:5. In other words, Canaan was cursed as a consequence of his father's sin, even though he himself may not have committed any wrongdoing. This idea of generational curses is a complex and controversial topic within the Christian faith, and it is important to remember that the Bible also teaches that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions and will be judged accordingly.

It is also important to consider the implications of the curse upon Canaan and his descendants. The Canaanites were a group of people who inhabited the land that God later promised to the Israelites. Throughout the Old Testament, the Canaanites are depicted as a wicked and idolatrous people who practiced child sacrifice and other abominable acts. The Israelites were commanded by God to drive the Canaanites out of the land and to destroy their altars and idols. Some scholars argue that the curse of Canaan was a prophetic judgment upon the Canaanites for their future wickedness and that it served as a justification for the Israelites' conquest of their land. However, it is important to remember that the Bible also teaches that God is a God of mercy and that He desires for all people to repent and turn to Him.

One particularly troubling aspect of the Curse of Ham story is the way it has been used throughout history to justify the enslavement and mistreatment of African people. This interpretation is based on the erroneous assumption that Ham's descendants, particularly the Cushites, were the ancestors of the African people. However, there is no biblical or historical evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, even if Ham's descendants were the ancestors of the African people, the curse was specifically directed at Canaan, not at all of Ham's descendants. The misuse of this story to justify racism and slavery is a tragic example of how Scripture can be twisted and misinterpreted to support evil and oppressive practices.

God's Judgment

As we read in Genesis 9:25, Noah cursed Canaan, the son of Ham, saying, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers ... View this full PRO sermon free with PRO