Racism in Genesis 9

[RDKirk]

The Bible thinks they can. It says that all the peoples of the Earth are descended from Shem, Japheth and Ham.

Now back to my question: Does this story divide the human race according to a three-tiered racial hierarchy? Is it saying that some races such as black Africans and Canaanites (if they still existed) are better off knowing their places and are right to be oppressed by white Europeans and Shemites?

Where does scripture place "black Africans" into that picture? If they are there at all, it is as a tribe descended from Ham--as was Mizraim.

Mizraim (Egypt) basically had a reasonable relationship with the Hebrews, especially as a protector nation up to the time of Nebuchanezzar. The relationship with Cush was reasonable as well.

The bible certainly does not say that Cushites are to be oppressed by white Europeans...that myth came out of the southern US in the 1800s, and existed nowhere else at any other time.

 

[RDKirk]

It seems that you're saying at least one race of human beings was cursed. How is that not racist? Also, what exactly was the nature of the curse?

Canaanites are not a race. If we did apply the modern concept of "race" to them, they would be the same race as the Hebrews.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you believe that Shemites are more blessed than Japhethites? Do you think that any of the blessings and curses in the OT cause some groups to be superior to others in the modern world?

Do you? Are you merely seeking biblical enlightenment, or are you working toward an actual point?

 

[RDKirk]

But this intermarriage has hardly been uniform. Most Biblical scholars believe that black Africans are Hamites. Many areas of sub-Saharan Africa have always been very genetically isolated. Ham is not mentioned as receiving any blessing, as opposed to Shem and Japheth.

Most biblical scholars belive that black Africans are represented in scripture as Cushites. And most biblical scholars believe that the early Egyptians (not the current Arabs) are represented in scripture as Mizaraimites.

But notice that scripture does not indicate the unremitting emnity between the Hebrews and either Egypt or Cush that it does against the Canaanites? Their relationship with Egypt and Cush had ups and downs, but was mostly up.

Don't you think it's possible that even today, black Africans lack the blessings of Shemites and Japhethites, and that explains black Africans hardships? Might not it be prudent for a European or a Jew to avoid marrying a black person, then, just to be safe, and to stick to marrying races more likely blessed?

Ah, so that's your point. You're trying to find a way to twist scripture to support racism.

 

[RDKirk]

I will clarify: I am not racist and do not believe that any of that is actually the case. I was just trying to hold Kylissa to her own logic.

If these passages lent themselves to racist interpretations in the past, they might do so in the present. Actually, until the latter half of the 20th century, many Christians used the Bible to justify racism.

No Christians used the Bible to justify racism except southern Americans from the 1800s (unless we want to put anti-Semitism in that category, but that's arguable).

 

[RDKirk]

A clear message I get from the Judeo-Christian tradition is this: You are not just an individual being judged according to his character. How you were conceived, who you parents were, who your ancestors were, all greatly determine your place in the great Human hierarchy. Shut up and know your place..

You must not have read the letter to the Romans, which clearly refutes that idea. And you've read but dismissed Galatians and Colossians, which also refutes it.

Talk about cherry picking.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The bible certainly does not say that Cushites are to be oppressed by white Europeans...that myth came out of the southern US in the 1800s, and existed nowhere else at any other time.

(Appreciate the historical context in your posts, RDKirk. I'm not familiar with that much of it and have to rely on sources.)

BTW, I never did mention this to the OP, but my family was from the southern US, and the roots certainly went back further than that. Still, I never heard a thing that implied Biblical racism.

The AREA was racist. The only thing I can recall my family saying was my Grandpa talking about serving with blacks in the military (I believe they had to be in a separate unit.). He said they were good men, and he trusted them with his life. That was the extent of my family's input regarding races to me.

(Except to try to gently explain to me that the community was not going to accept it when I became friends with a black boy in 2nd grade, AFTER it blew up in my face and I was pretty bewildered about the whole thing.)

 

[RDKirk]

(Appreciate the historical context in your posts, RDKirk. I'm not familiar with that much of it and have to rely on sources.)

BTW, I never did mention this to the OP, but my family was from the southern US, and the roots certainly went back further than that. Still, I never heard a thing that implied Biblical racism.

Researching the activity of slavery in the Christian west, I discovered that nobody posed a theological defense of slavery or racism prior to the 1800s in the American South.

Yes, slavery was practiced by Christians, but it's relationship to the Church was the same as prostitution and other "sins not yet eradicated." A couple of popes permitted slavery, but their rationale was based on the "right of kings and nations," not on theology.

At one point officials of the Church of England were found to be involved in slavery, but that created a scandal equivalent to pedophilia in the Church today--the fact that it was a major scandal proves the point of its lack of theological support.

In fact, a theological defense of slavery and racism didn't even arise in the American South until the early 1800s. By that time, all the rest of Christianity had developed abolitionist theologies that not only was slavery a vice, but that it was no longer to be tolerated.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Researching the activity of slavery in the Christian west, I discovered that nobody posed a theological defense of slavery or racism prior to the 1800s in the American South.

Yes, slavery was practiced by Christians, but it's relationship to the Church was the same as prostitution and other "sins not yet eradicated." A couple of popes permitted slavery, but their rationale was based on the "right of kings and nations," not on theology.

At one point officials of the Church of England were found to be involved in slavery, but that created a scandal equivalent to pedophilia in the Church today--the fact that it was a major scandal proves the point of its lack of theological support.

In fact, a theological defense of slavery and racism didn't even arise in the American South until the early 1800s. By that time, all the rest of Christianity had developed abolitionist theologies that not only was slavery a vice, but that it was no longer to be tolerated.

Thank you, RDKirk.

It isn't an area of interest enough to me to have researched it to this degree, but that is very interesting to know.

It also puts me in mind of certain -- propaganda -- that I know existed in the 20th century, that I had all but forgotten. There was that part of it that DID portray black African people as (frankly, less than human) and the pamphlets tried to connect themselves in some way to the Bible. Though as I recall, they leaned even more heavily on Darwinian evolution. I remember quite a bit MORE propaganda, equally ridiculous and somehow tied in my mind to the other sort, that targeted Jewish people. Also tried to connect in some way to the Bible (and usually blaming them for crucifying Christ).

Quite ridiculous is all I can say. The Israelites are the apple of God's eye, if anything. If there is any "racism" in the Bible, it is only that they are God's favored people, and if you consider that (I believe) it was due solely to God's ultimate purpose to redeem humanity through Christ, one can hardly assign evil "racist" intentions to God in this.

And Jesus WAS Jewish, and crucified by the Romans, no?

As I said, ridiculous. I haven't ever given it much thought, as it so obviously didn't deserve any (only remembered it in this conversation with you).

 

[ladycounselor2be]

Racism, is man-made ideology . The concept of racism is unholy and contrary to Gods holy nature. Gensis 2:7 says:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[ from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living (NIV) . No mention of color, and if you ever seen dust that was void of color let me know. However to prove to you that even as old as the creation man so is the concept of racism we look to the Tower of Babel:

Genesis 11:1-32 ESV /

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built.6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

It is here where racism began in its concept. People began to think of too much of themselves, and the Lord scattered them. In the scattering they went to different regions, spoke different languages and had to adapt to different environments. Hence, certain physical attributes became associated with certain people in certain areas. Adaptation, evolving and survival. And man being man- full of himself, haughty and vain- one "group" will always be/feel superior to another for one reason or another. This is the foundation of racism.

I wish to caution you in your thought processes: it is the same thinking that Hitler used to annihilate the Jews; the same concept that Europeans enslaved Africans and brought them to America; the same in which Native Americans were systemically removed from their land, the same for ethic cleansing religious persecution and the like. If you accept this part of the Bible to be truth, then I submit to you that the rest of has to be true as well. That being said, that racism is a human concept, and that love, grace, and mercy of Jesus Christ surpasses all evil in the hearts of men.


I am praying for you

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Jeremiah seems to make a disparaging comment about 'black skinned people' here.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

Racist?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

The KJV begins verse 23 with And Shem and Japheth........not But Shem and Japheth........

What version are you quoting from?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jeremiah seems to make a disparaging comment about 'black skinned people' here.

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." (Jeremiah 13:23)

Racist?

Are you seriously thinking it is?

“If you say in your heart,
‘Why have these things happened to me?’
Because of the magnitude of your iniquity
Your skirts have been removed
And your heels have [d]been exposed.
23 “Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.

I'm not so sure? First, this whole section of the chapter reads like a prophecy that Jeremiah speaks to the house of Judah from God.

And in the lines just before that, it seems to be speaking of the response of the house of Judah "if you say in your heart, why have these things happened to me?" ...

So I for one can't be positive who is supposed to be speaking here, for sure. I'm just reading it, maybe someone else can actually tell, but it seems to me that it could be difficult to know for sure whether these represent the words of God, of Judah, or even of Jeremiah by providing example?

More to the point, are we sure that the phrase implies anything bad? We use the part about the leopard today as a colloquialism today to mean a person can't change, and usually in a bad way, but I don't see how it's possible to lay a colloquialism in English today on the context of a prophecy written thousands of years ago in Hebrew?

And if you remove the leopard, you simply have the question if the Ethopian can change his skin. No, he can't. Neither can the Greek, the Jew, the Egyptian, the Japanese, the Caucasian, or anyone else. So ... I don't see a justification for making it racist?

It is mentioning evil, but that is directly applying to the house of Judah. But it's not saying they CAN'T change, but that they CAN. (Which is the main reason I question that it might represent part of the reply of Judah - kind of like "how can we be expected to change?" kind of question.)

This one is hard to read on the surface, for me, and interpret that particular detail. I can't explain that one line clearly. I DO know what the whole passage means, of course, and that's the important part for the purposes of reading the Bible.

But for the purposes of finding racism in the Bible? I am not at all convinced. Just as I told the OP, I think to make this "racist" would mean to stretch the intended meaning FAR out of shape, and apply quite a bit that I don't see any justification for. Not as poor an example as the first one, IMO, but still not a plausible argument for racism.

You didn't really mean to say it was, did you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you seriously thinking it is?

“If you say in your heart,
‘Why have these things happened to me?’
Because of the magnitude of your iniquity
Your skirts have been removed
And your heels have [d]been exposed.
23 “Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.

I'm not so sure? First, this whole section of the chapter reads like a prophecy that Jeremiah speaks to the house of Judah from God.

And in the lines just before that, it seems to be speaking of the response of the house of Judah "if you say in your heart, why have these things happened to me?" ...

So I for one can't be positive who is supposed to be speaking here, for sure. I'm just reading it, maybe someone else can actually tell, but it seems to me that it could be difficult to know for sure whether these represent the words of God, of Judah, or even of Jeremiah by providing example?

More to the point, are we sure that the phrase implies anything bad? We use the part about the leopard today as a colloquialism today to mean a person can't change, and usually in a bad way, but I don't see how it's possible to lay a colloquialism in English today on the context of a prophecy written thousands of years ago in Hebrew?

And if you remove the leopard, you simply have the question if the Ethopian can change his skin. No, he can't. Neither can the Greek, the Jew, the Egyptian, the Japanese, the Caucasian, or anyone else. So ... I don't see a justification for making it racist?

It is mentioning evil, but that is directly applying to the house of Judah. But it's not saying they CAN'T change, but that they CAN. (Which is the main reason I question that it might represent part of the reply of Judah - kind of like "how can we be expected to change?" kind of question.)

This one is hard to read on the surface, for me, and interpret that particular detail. I can't explain that one line clearly. I DO know what the whole passage means, of course, and that's the important part for the purposes of reading the Bible.

But for the purposes of finding racism in the Bible? I am not at all convinced. Just as I told the OP, I think to make this "racist" would mean to stretch the intended meaning FAR out of shape, and apply quite a bit that I don't see any justification for. Not as poor an example as the first one, IMO, but still not a plausible argument for racism.

You didn't really mean to say it was, did you?

I was asking if anyone thought it was.

While I don't think the bible contains racism I do believe that racism has been present from the time significant differences in appearance and culture appeared between tribal groups.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was asking if anyone thought it was.

While I don't think the bible contains racism I do believe that racism has been present from the time significant differences in appearance and culture appeared between tribal groups.

I didn't REALLY think you meant that it was, and I hoped it was more of a rhetorical question. You would have surprised me if you'd gone on to defend the idea.

Of course racism exists in the world. So many "ism"s in fact. They are wearying to the spirit ...

Glad to know you weren't trying to defend it. You could have picked an easier passage ... I'm still not sure exactly who was speaking and saying what to whom in that little phrase, LOL. (I'm teasing you, in case I'm being clear as mud about it.)

 

[isleof]

I know that many Christian churches nowadays have a somewhat egalitarian streak, and lean heavily on passages such as Galatians 3:28, which, when taken out of context, indicate total equality among believers.

However, I am almost convinced that the only reasonable interpretation of Genesis 9 is a racist one:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
[SOURCE: biblegateway.com]

Scholars will debate until the end of time why Noah explicitly laid the curse upon Canaan and not explicitly upon Ham. They will debate whether the curse did or did not extend to Ham's other sons. They will speculate if Ham did more than just look.

However, the story makes at least these certain: A) All the Earth's people came from Shem, Japheth and Ham B) Noah blessed Shem C) Noah gave Japheth a lesser blessing. D) Noah cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers.

I believe this story is telling us that the "Shemite" races are superior to and more blessed than the "Japhethite" races. I believe this story is saying that "Canaanites" are an inferior slave race. While I'm not absolutely certain that the story is saying that all "Hamites" are cursed, that's being pretty generous. They certainly aren't mentioned as receiving any blessing (unlike Shem and Japheth), and if they had, that's a surprising omission of a salient detail.

If anyone has a (scripturally based) argument that this story is not racist and does not advocate a multi-tiered racial hierarchy, I will hear it.

Christ is cursed. All who hang on a tree are cursed.

Genesis 9:24 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

 

[isleof]

Has one considered that God is aware of every intent of the heart?

Without intent and the condemnation of thoughts against another, perhaps the prophecy is true, those claiming to understand, and those professing to understand without understanding, are far far apart.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I didn't REALLY think you meant that it was, and I hoped it was more of a rhetorical question. You would have surprised me if you'd gone on to defend the idea.

Of course racism exists in the world. So many "ism"s in fact. They are wearying to the spirit ...

Glad to know you weren't trying to defend it. You could have picked an easier passage ... I'm still not sure exactly who was speaking and saying what to whom in that little phrase, LOL. (I'm teasing you, in case I'm being clear as mud about it.)

It was rhetorical (just trying to stir the pot a little).

 

[isleof]

At least we are staying on topic with a topic that deals with racism where none exists.

59 posts of nonsense according to "oldwiseguy".

 

[~Anastasia~]

Speaking of stirring pots ...