By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)
What is the Bible’s view on race? It seems that no one can explain this without imbalanced views, either of racism or of the extreme ideology of ultra-equality.
When it comes to the black race, amongst the most vile questions I get are always these: ‘Why are Black countries poorer than White countries?’ ‘Why do Black neighborhoods tend to be more violent than White neighborhoods?’
The typical answers to these questions come from two opposing sides that actually lead to the same destructive end.
One inadequate explanation goes like this: The reason why Black areas usually are more impoverished and violent is because of inequality, unemployment and the lack of opportunity. The other explanation is sinister: The reason why Black areas are usually in the worst conditions is because of genetics; that the African inherits bad qualities and that he is confined within a biological disposition that he cannot escape nor change.
When people (and these are growing in number) who call themselves “race realists” or “identitarians” describe the conditions of Blacks — high crime rates, high levels of poverty and the like — they are speaking of realities, things that actually are occurring. But, being deceptive, they will use reality to justify evil, such as eugenics and Darwinism. They will offer real drink, but add just enough cyanid to kill millions.
Both sides use fact that lack other essential facts. By mixing truth with lies, they shed a vale to hide their evil agenda.
When leftists and their ilk, point to evils like racism, they will condemn things that need to be condemned — such as ethno-nationalism and the like —but they either provide solutions that lead to more violence and chaos — such as calling for a bloody revolt by Blacks against Whites — or they will leave a vacuum, or a vague solution that is without real guidance.
But then, there is a third explanation that no one dares to discuss: the Christian teaching on race.
Here we will explain what no one dares to tackle: What does the Bible really says about race?
By the time we present all the evidence, it becomes crystal clear: Scripture never promotes subjugation, exploitation, oppression and racism … rather it truly upholds a balanced view on race and the different roles that were given to each of the sons of Noah, in order to strike dead the real racism: the imbalanced view of the eugenists that leads to exploitation, oppression and the ultimate genocide of millions.
The waves of the great flood were abated, and the ark of Noah landed on Mount Ararat, and the dove, in the words of the poet Prudentius, brought “to the ark in her mouth a branch of a green olive tree. For the raven being possessed with voracity had stayed among the loathsome bodies, but the dove brings home the joyful news of the gift of peace.” (1) The dove — symbolizing the Holy Spirit — brought the sign of peace to the human family, and this is the point of our study, to bring a better understanding of the spiritual and political dimensions of the human family, and not to be like the racialists and socialists who, like the ravens, bring not an olive branch, but seek to consume mankind by bringing discord between the nations.
THE THREE SONS OF NOAH
So lets first define the human family. Noah had three sons — Ham, Shem and Japheth — and from these three came all of the peoples of the earth. Japheth was the patriarch of the Europeans, or those who are most commonly known as Whites. Japheth’s son, Gomer, founded the Galatians, or the Celts or Gauls who lived in central Anatolia; his son Magog founded the Magogites or the Scythians of the Caucasus; his son Madai founded the Medes, or the Kurds that are today seen in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey; his son Tubal founded the people of Caucasian Iberia that lies between the Black and Caspian Seas, on the south of Russia; his son Meshech founded Mosocheni who would later be known as the Cappadocians who lived in central Anatolia; his son Tiras became the father of the Thracians who would inhabit parts of southern Bulgaria, northern Greece and the westernmost tip of Anatolia; his grandson Javan founded the Ionians, or the Greek peoples. (2) Without going into more detail on the Japhetic migrations, the Japhetic peoples are the Indo-Iranian or Indo-European peoples who ultimately migrated to Europe and even all the way to India (the Aryans) and later on to Australia.
Shem was the patriarch of the Semitic peoples. Shem, as we read in Josephus, “had five sons who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean.” (3) Shem’s son Elam fathered the Elamites or the Persians; his son Ashur founded the Assyrian people; his son Arphaxad founded the Chaldeans; his son Aram fathered the Arameans of ancient Syria; and his son Lud would father the Lydians of western Anatolia. (4)
Ham was the father of the Hamitic peoples. These, biblically speaking, can be categorized as the African peoples (commonly known today as the Blacks), some of the south Arabs of Yemen and Oman, and also the Canaanites who lived in present day Israel, Lebanon, and North Africa (the Carthaginians called themselves Canaanites as we learn from St. Augustine). As we read in Josephus, the sons of Ham “possessed the land from Syria and Amanus and the mountains of Libanus [Lebanon], seizing upon all that was on its seacoasts and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own.” (5)
Ham’s son Cush founded the Ethiopian and Somali peoples, and the peoples of the Horn of Africa, and the whole of the Black Africans. Ham’s son Mizraim founded the people of Egypt; and his son Phut was the father of the Libyans. Overall, the Hamites today can be found in Africa, Asia (such as the South East Asians and the Dravidian Indians), Australia (the Aboriginals, that is) and the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
To backtrack a little bit, the Japhethites are today’s Europeans, and overall they are the Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans; the sons of Shem are the Semites, or for the most part the peoples of the Middle East; and the Hamites are the Africans, or the native populations that can be seen in the Americas, Australia and Asia.
EXPLANING THE CURSE OF HAM
Some may even go so far as to say that God cursed the Blacks with inferiority by bringing up “the curse of Ham,” pointing to verses from Genesis to justify this. But is the Biblical explanation as simple as “Ham must work for the White man”? Here we will try to explain this “curse of Ham” and its significance.
After Noah left the ark, he got drunk off the grape of the vine and he “became uncovered in his tent.” (Genesis 9:21) And then:
“Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.” (Genesis 9:22)
“Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.” (Genesis 9:23)
When Noah awakened, and realized what Ham had done, he declared a curse on his descendants:
“So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. Then he said:
‘Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.’ (Genesis 9:24-25)
Was the punishment upon Ham and his descendants or only Canaan? Some say that it was not Ham who was cursed, but Canaan. However, the Church Fathers were clear. St. Ambrose of Milan quotes the verse as saying “Ham” and not “Canaan.” As St. Ambrose wrote:
“Did it not come first from Noah who, perceiving that his son Ham had foolishly derided the nakedness of his father, cursed him in these words, Cursed be Ham, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren, and set his brethren as lords over him, seeing that they had wisely deemed their fathers old age worthy of honor?” (6)
St. John Chrysostom also interprets the verse as putting the curse on Ham, since Ham did not love Noah and laughed at his nakedness, while Japheth and Shem loved their father and covered him:
“Whence did the sons of Noah obtain a good report? was it not because they vehemently loved their father, and did not endure to see his exposure? And whence was the other cursed? was it not from not loving him?” *St. John of Chrysostom, homilies on Thessalonians, homily iv, ed. Schaff*
The fifth century Gallic monk, Vincent of Lerins, sees the verse as meaning that the sin of Ham was so grave that the curse went upon his very descendants, writing that Ham was one “who not only failed to cover the nakedness of the venerable Noe, but even held it up to ridicule. Because of this violation of filial piety, therefore, he was considered so guilty that even his descendants inherited the malediction he incurred for his sin.” (7)
From this, we can see that the curse can be interpreted as being applied not just to Canaan, but to all of Ham’s descendants. While the curse was placed on all of Ham’s descendants, the Scripture, focusing on the sacred history of Christ, put the emphasis on Canaan, since the Hebrews conquered the Canaanites. St. Augustine tells us that it was Canaan “in whose person Ham was cursed”. (8) Canaan was cursed, but Ham still was cursed, and thus it followed all of his children.
That the Scripture renders the verse as “Cursed be Canaan” signifies a special focus on the history of the Hebrews leaving Egypt and entering Canaan which they conquered, since sacred history focuses on the redemption of mankind, and Christ came from the nation of the Hebrews. “Shem and Japheth,” writes Ephraim the Syrian, “being gracious, looked for the gracious Son, Who should come and set free Canaan from the servitude of sin.” (9)
JAPHETH AND THE TENT OF SHEM
But there is more to this story. If Ham is to serve, what place does Shem and Japheth have in the human family? Are they to be masters and Ham a slave? The reality goes beyond this superficial conclusion, as read these verse which so many ignore:
“Blessed be the Lord,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant.” (Genesis 9:26-27)
There is a significance in Japheth being a dweller in the tents of Shem. Noah proclaims that God is “the God of Shem,” meaning that the Semite was destined to bring the true faith to humanity, for Christ — the Salvation of mankind — came from the Semitic line. The verse of Noah then says that God will enlarge Japheth, and that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem. By enlarge Japheth, it means that the sons of Japheth will multiply greatly and take many territories as, in the words of Haydock, is “verified by the extensive dominion of the children of Japheth, both in the islands and on the continent”. Japheth enlarges, that is, his sons were to become the people of empire, and ultimately those who would lead Christendom, dwelling in the tent (tabernacle/temple) of Shem.
By saying that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem, Noah was prophesying that the sons of Japheth will enter the tabernacle, or the temple, of Shem, in that they will be given authority over the priesthood of God. This prophecy indeed was witnessed when the Jews — the Semites who held the temple of God — rejected their Messiah, and the Japhethites — that is, the Europeans — accepted Christ as their Messiah and ruled Christendom, the continuation of Israel.
Hence St. Stephen, before being murdered by the Jews, said that the Jews “have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:53) And St. Peter declares to the Jews: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.” (Acts 2:36)
Once the Jews rejected Christ, these sons of Shem left their own tent, and the sons of Japheth dwelled in the tent of the God of Shem. But, a certain number of the sons of Shem, not following the wickedness exhibited in the Jews, followed their role of being a light to the gentiles, and brought the sons of Japheth to the tent.
And their is even more significance to the story of Noah, that connects the dots. When Christ, like Noah, was naked (on the cross), the Jews mocked him saying: “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.” (Matthew 27:40) And they also said, “His blood be on us, and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25) By this, Shem became Ham, being like his brother who laughed at Noah who, after seeing the destruction of humanity, lamented with the melancholy of wine. And now these sons of Shem were laughing at Christ as He was suffering “the cup which the Father has given Me” (John 18:11).
St. Paul, a Semite, worked to bring Japheth into the tent of Shem. He uttered a verse that most people ignore, that after he would go to Jerusalem, he would then go to Rome:
Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” (Acts 19:21)
Even Christ Himself declared it. When the leaders of the Jews desired to persecute and murder St. Paul — and by such evil plots, leaving the tent of Shem — Christ said to him:
“Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.” (Acts 23:11)
All who say that Rome is insignificant, have called Christ a liar. When St. Paul was in Rome, he declared to the Jews who were listening to him:
The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying,
‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”’ (Acts 28:25-27)
After saying these words, St. Paul then told the Jews:
“Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” (Acts 28:28)
In the city of Rome, the Semite prophet tells the sons of Shem: you have left the tent of Shem, now Japheth will repose within it. While the Jews, for the most part, rejected their own Messiah — the Holy One Who came from the line of Shem — the gentiles in Rome, the sons of Japheth, are described by the Apostle Paul — a Semite who remained in the tent of Shem — as those who will hear the teachings of Christ, and accept Him as their Messiah. “To all who are in Rome,” wrote St. Paul, “beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 1:7)
The sons of Shem, who kept their dwelling in the tent of Shem, invite the sons of Japheth to dwell as well in the tent of Shem. Japheth enters the tent of Shem, and God enlarges Japheth, who reigns over Christendom. Japheth, in the words of St. Augustine, “dwells in the habitations of Shem,” (10) inviting his brothers to enter the tent of God.
But unlike St. Paul, Elymas the sorcerer, “a false prophet, a Jew” (Acts 13:6) who left the tent of Shem, tells the Japhethite, Sergius Paulus, to not hear the words of St. Paul. The Apostle, a son of Shem, tells the Jewish wizard: “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10)
A legion of the sons of Shem leave the tent, and try to lead Japheth away from entering the same tent of Shem. But the righteous sons of Shem, who follow the God of Shem (Genesis 9:26), lead him to the tent of their patriarch. St. Paul speaks about how certain Jews were trying to prevent the Jews who believed in Christ their Messiah from bringing the gentiles to the Christian faith:
“For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)
Here God does not mince words. The Jews who rejected Christ, killed Christ.
It was the role of Shem to bring the gentiles into the tent of God. Hence God has St. Philip baptize the Ethiopian (Acts 8). St. Peter met Cornelius, a centurion of the Italian Division, and tells him: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)
Here, a son of Shem was bringing a son of Japheth into the tent of Shem. But certain Jews were upset at St. Peter for being in the company of a non-Jew, and said: “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (Acts 11:3) When St. Peter corrected them, they were amazed and said: “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” (Acts 11:18)
Shem was bringing Japheth to dwell in his tent.
The Pharisees, enraged at Christ, said: “Look, the world has gone after Him!” (John 12:19) And indeed, for the time that the name of the God of Shem “shall be great among the Gentiles” (Malachi 1:11) was nigh. For after St. John quoted the Pharisee’s outrage against Christ, he wrote: “Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast.” (John 12:20) Here, the sons of Japheth were searching for the tent of Shem, and they had found it. Jesus declared of the Centurion, who asked Him to heal his servant:
“Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 8:10-11)
This kingdom of heaven is the tent of Shem.
A man who was not a son of Shem had greater faith than all of Israel. He was in the tent of Shem, while most of the Jews had left. And Christ said, non-Jews from all over the world would sit down with Abraham, a son of Shem, and sit in the tent of Shem.
There is also a story in the Old Testament that illustrates this. Uriah the Hittite was a son of Japheth (the Hittites were amongst the ancientest of Indo-Europeans, and spoke a language that has similarities with English), and he had greater faith than King David himself. Read the words of Uriah, what he told to David when he tried to scheme him:
“The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.” (2 Samuel 11:11)
Notice his words: the Ark of the Covenant, where God made His Presence, was dwelling in a tent. Here the son of Japheth rebukes the son of Shem, and humbles himself before the tent of the God of Shem (Genesis 9:26), and in such a sublime state of mind, Uriah — a son of Japheth — made his dwelling in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9:27). David’s deception, and Uriah’s zeal, foreshadowed what was to come: Shem leaving the tent, and Japheth dwelling within it.
What did the Ark foreshadow? The Virgin Mary, the Theotokos — the God bearer — who, like the Ark, had God within her. “Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant[ was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail. Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.” (Revelation 11:19 – 12:1)
Uriah humbled himself before the Ark, and sons of Japheth would later accept the Virgin Mary as their mother, more so than the Jews. What does Talmudic Judaism teach of the fulfillment of the Ark, the Virgin Mary? The Talmud teaches that Mary “played the harlot with carpenters.” (11) The story of Uriah presages what Christ Himself said: that a Centurion would have more faith than all of Israel, that Japheth would enter the tent of Shem.
When Noah was alive, he, being a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5) taught his sons on the law of God. His three sons also must have taught their own children about the law of God. Somewhere along the line, paganism seeped in. But, remnants of the truth, taught by Noah, remained in the midst of the chaos of paganism that had overtaken humanity. Japheth covered his father and refused to see his nakedness. And in ancient Rome, in pagan times, there was a custom that adult sons should never bathe with their fathers. This obviously was something that was perpetuated from the act of Japheth, and while perhaps the pagans did not remember Japheth (maybe they remembered him under a different name), they continued this custom nonetheless. St. Ambrose alludes to this:
“Wherefore Ham, Noah’s son, brought disgrace upon himself; for he laughed when he saw his father naked, but they who covered their father received the gift of a blessing. For which cause, also, it was an ancient custom in Rome, and in many other states as well, that grown-up sons should not bathe with their parents, or sons-in-law with their fathers-in-law, in order that the great duty of reverence for parents should not be weakened.” (12)
If such a custom was continued on, from the virtue of Japheth to his ancient descendants, then a knowledge of God was also preserved in Japheth’s posterity. St. Paul saw that the Greeks worshiped the Unknown God, and he said to them: “Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). A son of Shem told the sons of Japheth: ‘This God who you call Unknown, this is the true God who you but darkly remember.’ A son of Shem invites the sons of Japheth to return to the tent of the God of Shem.
THE HAM, SHEM AND JAPHETH PARADIGM
But if we are to say that Ham must serve Shem and Japheth, what role do the latter two play in this paradigm? When speaking of these things, the first image that people have in their minds is of a horrid slavery, of Ham working while his brothers are doing nothing. But this is far from the truth. For while Ham serves Shem and Japheth in one way, Shem and Japheth serve Ham in another way. They both serve each other.
The Scriptures illustrate this harmony in the battle of Gibeon, when the Hebrews fought against a confederacy of Canaanite tribes in order to defend another Canaanite tribe. The Gibeonites, terrified of the Hebrews and knowing what God did for them in Egypt and against other Canaanite kings, went to Joshua acting as though they were from afar, and said: “We are your servants.” (Joshua 9:8)
When Joshua had made a covenant with the Gibeonites before the Lord, he “made them woodcutters and water carriers for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, in the place which He would choose, even to this day.” (Joshua 9:27) Here Ham agreed to serve Shem, but look at what took place later. The Canaanite king, Adoni-Zedek, called for the other kings of Canaan declaring:
“Come up to me and help me, that we may attack Gibeon, for it has made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.” (Joshua 10:4)
Here Ham preys on Ham, and revolts against Shem. The officials of Gibeon went to the camp of Joshua, saying:
“Do not forsake your servants; come up to us quickly, save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites who dwell in the mountains have gathered together against us.” (Joshua 10:6)
But did Joshua forsake his servants? No. The Scripture says that “Joshua ascended from Gilgal, he and all the people of war with him, and all the mighty men of valor.” (Joshua 10:7) The Hebrews, with the help of God, struck the Canaanites with a great fury, and repulsed them. The sun was soon to descend, and the night was arriving. Joshua, wanting the light of the day to continue so as to finish the battle, declared:
“‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.’
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.” (Joshua 10:13)
Most who read the story fail to pause; God made the sun stand still, for the defense of Ham.
The Scripture describes the battle as such: “And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:14) And Israel fought for Hamites, their servants. Ham served Shem by cutting wood and carrying water, and Shem rushed to the battle and sacrificed himself for Ham. Ham serves Shem, and Shem dies for Ham.
This is the order, the paradigm that God had intended for the human family.
Ham serves Shem and Japheth, but the latter two also must serve Ham, by caring for and protecting him. Both the sons of Shem and the sons of Japheth are given a responsibility to care for the sons of Ham, as the Hebrews cared for the Gibeonites. They are not to be as King Saul, who slaughtered the Gibeonites “in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah.” (2 Samuel 21:2) After Saul committed this nationalist genocide, God struck all of Israel with a famine, and declared His reason for this:
“It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites.” (2 Samuel 21:1)
God hates national zeal, and genocidal racialism. God is not a God of nationalism, rather he is the God of the human family — creating “from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” (Acts 17:26) — and like in any family, there are roles that, when abided to, lead to order and harmony.
The paradigm of Ham, Shem and Japheth is not as simple as ‘Ham is a slave to the rest.’ There are spiritual dimensions in this human family. Noah says, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.” (Genesis 9:25) There are those who would take this verse and use it to back some racialist fantasy, and there are those would take these words and use them as proof that ‘the Bible is racist.’ But both of these uses of Noah’s words for the cause of some agenda, only make sense to a superficial mind that ignores the sublime layers of the phenomena of human existence.
While Canaan, in one part of the Scripture, was called to serve, yet another part of the Scripture we have a Canaanite who was called by God to rule as king and to serve as priest, Melchizedek — who Josephus describes as “a potent man among the Canaanites,” (13) — who declares to Abraham:
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth
And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” (Genesis 14:19-20)
Canaan is a servant, but when he resides in the tent of his uncle Shem, he reigns as a king and a priest of God. It is of the order of Melchizedek, a Canaanite, that Christ is High Priest, or as St. Paul writes: “even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20) The Apostle, in the same epistle, writes:
“Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.” (Hebrews 7:9-10)
Way before the Levitical order, which is of the line of Shem, there was the order of Melchizedek, the order of a Canaanite, the order of a Hamite, and it is of this order that Christ is High Priest.
Why? Christ, as servant, chose the order of the servant, and in this order the whole earth is saved.
On the land of Gibeon, the Hebrews saved the Canaanites; on the land of Gibeon did Moses make sacrifice, and it was in Gibeon where King David made a sacrifice on the land of a Canaanite, Ornan the Jebusite, to appease God and end a plague that struck Israel. David, because of his lack of faith, did a census to count how many fighting men there were to defend Israel. God was so enraged that He brought a plague to Israel and commanded David to make a sacrifice on the land of Ornan, a Canaanite. When David went to Ornan’s land, he said: “Grant me the place of this threshing floor, that I may build an altar on it to the Lord. You shall grant it to me at the full price, that the plague may be withdrawn from the people.” (1 Chronicles 21:22) Ornan responded by saying:
“Take it to yourself, and let my lord the king do what is good in his eyes. Look, I also give you the oxen for burnt offerings, the threshing implements for wood, and the wheat for the grain offering; I give it all.” (1 Chronicles 21:23)
Look at what Ornan (the Hamite) is saying to David: “the wheat for the grain offering; I give it all.” These are the words of a Canaanite to a Semite, and this parallels how Melchizedek — a Canaanite king — brought out bread and wine to Abraham, a Semite (Genesis 14:18). This presages Christ, High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, giving the bread and the wine and saying: “Take, eat; this is My body.” (Matthew 26:26)
The Scripture goes on to say that when “David saw that the Lord had answered him on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, he sacrificed there. For the tabernacle of the Lord and the altar of the burnt offering, which Moses had made in the wilderness, were at that time at the high place in Gibeon.” (1 Chronicles 21:28-29)
It was in the land of a Canaanite — Gibeon — that Israel was saved. The tabernacle of God — the tabernacle of Shem — was on the land of a Canaanite, and through the cooperation between David the Semite and Ornan the Hamite, Israel was saved. So through Christ, the High Priest of the order of a Hamite — Melchizedek — humanity is saved. Ham, like Shem and Japheth, was made for something greater.
On the one hand, Japheth, under the Christian spirit, protects and cares for Ham. The eugenists and the racialist, and the leftists, on the other hand, will say to leave Ham to his own will, saying with Cain: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9)
In fact, it is the Darwinist who says: ‘Use Ham for slavery and experimentation.’
And another will say: ‘Have Ham revolt against Japheth, leave Ham to his own will, and then fill his neighborhoods with abortion clinics so he can destroy his own children’, all under the banner of equality.
Both of these are simply means to dividing up and destroying the human family.
Both of these machinations have the same destruction of human life, and they both result from an imbalanced view of humanity that either says: ‘Blacks are inferior,’ or ‘Hamites should revolt against Japheth in the name of equality.’ Both of these are imbalances and rejections of the harmony that God established: that Ham shall serve Japheth and Shem, and Japheth and Shem shall care for Ham.
Ham, Shem and Japheth were a family, and they still are a family. We can be as the eugenists and see humanity as a body of sub-species, or we can see mankind as a human family. The former will lead to exploitation, slavery and despotism, the latter will lead to order, a harmony in which all of the family serves one another in the roles that God has given them.
But this relationship is not just based on ancient history, but continued on. What was done between Joshua and the Canaanites of Gibeon was done in Mexico by the Christian Spaniards. When Cortez and his army of conquistadors entered the region of Cempoala, the people there cried to them about how they were being exploited and tyrannized by the ruling Aztecs. Bernal Diaz, a conquistador who fought under the command of Hernando Cortez, recounted:
“they told us that every year many of their sons and daughters were demanded of them for sacrifices, and others for services in the houses and plantations of their conquerers. And they made other complaints; so many that I no longer remember them. They said that if their wives and daughters were handsome, Montezuma’s tax-gatherers took them away and raped them, and that they did this in all the thirty villages in which the Totonac language was spoken.” (14)
Here there is a despotic system of exploitation and genocide. Here, Ham destroys Ham. Cortez, hearing of these evils, told the local chiefs of one village that “he and his brothers who were with him would defend and kill anyone who tried to harm them; and the Caciques [chiefs] and their villagers one and all promised to stand by us, to obey any orders we might give them, and to join their forces with ours against Montezuma.” (15) This obedience by the Hamitic Indians towards the Japhetic Spanish, is the same obedience that was seen in the Gibeonites towards the Hebrews. To purge Mexico of these evils, Cortez knew that the only way to truly do this was to bring the indigenous people to the Christian faith. Cortez told Olintecle, the chief of Zautla and a vassal of the Aztecs:
“I would have you know that we have come from distant lands at the order of our lord and King, the Emperor Don Carlos, who has many and great princes as his vassals, and he sends us to command your great Prince Montezuma not to sacrifice or kill any more Indians, or to rob his vassals, or to seize any more lands, but to give his fealty to our lord the King. And now I say the same to you, Olintecle, and to all the other Caciques who are with you, desist from your sacrifices, and no longer eat the flesh of your own relations, and cease to commit sodomy, and the other evil customs which you practice, for such is the will of our Lord God, whom we believe in and worship, the giver of life and death who will take us up to heaven.” (16)
An evil Hamite, left to his own devices, will exploit vulnerable Hamites. And in this situation it is the role of Japheth to defend him and bring Ham to the tent of Shem.
Many Indian tribes made allegiances with Cortez in his fight against the Aztecs. As the Spaniards were marching to fight the Aztecs, they had an army of Tlascalans who cried out: “Long live our Lord and Emperor [of Spain]!” and: “Castile! Castile!” and: “Tlascala! Tlascala!” (17) When Cortez was about to invade Tenochtitlan, he had an army of around a quarter of a million people, almost all of them Indians. As Francesco Lopez de Gomara, Cortez’s chaplain and secretary, recounted: “Altogether, I believe, there were two hundred thousand men present at the siege of Mexico.” (18)
After the Spanish vanquished the Aztecs, Cazonci, the king of Michoacan — whose people were the greatest enemy of the Aztecs who never, or if not very rarely, defeated them in battle — submitted his throne and his kingdom to Spain. Gomara writes that “he offered himself and his country to the King of Castile, as Cortes had requested.” (19)
In the history of the conquest of Mexico, Ham exploits Ham, and then Japheth — Spain, as a nation of Christendom — liberates Ham from pagan tyranny, Ham humbles himself before his brother, and enters the tent of Shem, as the Indians submitted themselves to Spain and converted to the Semitic faith. But, too many times has Japheth abused his position, and exploited his brother Ham.
We are reminded of what took place in Paraguay in the 18th century. Portuguese kidnappers would seize natives and force them into slavery. Jesuit missionaries, seeing these evils, decided to arm and train the locals to fight against this tyranny. The Jesuits obtained permission from the Court of Madrid, and procured the materials to make weapons. They established manufactories for gunpowder and got cannons, and trained the indigenous farmers for war. When Portuguese kidnappers returned, they did not see helpless husbandmen, but were welcomed with gun fire, and were smashed by bullets and cannons. (20)
The sons of Japheth who had left the tent of Shem, and rejected compassion, abused Ham. But the sons of Japheth who remained in the tent of the God of Shem, cared for his brother Ham, and protected him from the abusers. This is the way of God, this is the way of the human family that He created.
But, what happens when Japheth leaves the tent? He becomes worse than any of his brothers, as the world witnessed in the evils of the Thirty Years War, the French Revolution, both World Wars and the like. When Japheth leaves the tent, the whole of humanity suffers.
In the end many of the sons of Japheth will be on the side of the Antichrist. Hence God says: “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him” (Ezekiel 38:2), these all being sons of Japheth.
But the world today still continues to slander the church with false accusations while history recorded numerous popes combated the slavery and exploitation that was done by the evil sons of Japheth who wanted to take advantage of natives of European colonies. For example, Pope Eugene IV wrote an encyclical, Sicut Dudum, declaring that the Europeans who were enslaving Blacks in the Canary Islands had to liberate their slaves or else face excommunication:
“We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication”
Even though the word “slavery” has an automatic negative connotation, we can at least acknowledge a simple reality: people are always going to work for other people, and there will always be poor and there will always be rich.
Slavery will always be with us. In today’s ‘free’ world, all what is different, is that one can choose who his slave-master is.
The question is not, How can we get rid of poverty or servitude, but how should we conduct ourselves within this reality. We can either create a system of exploitation and oppression, or follow a system of justice in the midst of the realities of poverty and labor. “For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always.” (Matthew 26:11) The question is not how we can create a world with no poor people, but how each person — in their own roles, means and capacities — can bring to humanity their own civilizational endowments.
The question is not if Ham should serve Japheth and Shem, but how he is to serve his brothers. No matter what we do, Ham will always serve Japheth. We can either have a system of exploitation and horrific slavery, or an equilibrium where serving is done in an orderly and just way, with Christian ethics as our foundation.
Supposedly, African countries are now “independent” from White countries. But if the Africans are so free, then why are so many Africans laboring as slaves to dig up diamonds for Europeans and Americans who buy the shiny rocks with money that is then used by warlords to fund their bloody operations? Reject the Ham, Shem and Japheth paradigm, and you are left with a system of exploitation in which Ham abuses Ham, and Japheth and Shem profit from his suffering. Abide by the Ham, Shem and Japheth paradigm, and you have a harmony in which the brothers serve each other in the capacity of their roles.
Why are African countries the poorest in the world, even though they are supposedly “independent”? It is because we have broken the human family. Japheth and Shem say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and left Ham to be “independent,” or rather, open to exploitation. Ham is no longer under the care of Japheth, rather he is under a system of exploitation that is being done under the banner of ‘welfare.’ Major entities like the European Union will claim to give “aid” to Africa, when the reality is that they give tremendous amounts of money to fund for abortions in Africa. We have rejected the paradigm in which Ham serves Japheth and Shem — in unity with the Christian spirit — and Japheth and Shem care for Ham.
There is an eternal component within humanity, and one that does not constitute it as a biological group of sub-species — as Darwinism would have us believe, separating Whites, Blacks and others as different species — but as a human family in which the different members serve each other within their own roles. In the human family, there are no sub-species, there is rather an equilibrium of beings, working within their own capacities for the betterment of souls.
Pope Pius XII gave a most balanced view on the nature of humanity, in his 1939 encyclical, Darkness over the earth (Summi Pontificatus), in which he wrote against the racism that was becoming more and popular in the wake of the Third Reich. In one part of the encyclical, Pius XII first describes humanity as being “enriched with supernatural gifts and properties, destined for a mysterious and eternal happiness” and that “mankind was divided into various nations or tribes,” and that the Creator “would not abandon his fatherly care of them, but determined, in the decrees of His divine mercy, to unite them again to Himself at a later time, by a covenant of friendship.” (21)
Here Pius XII is describing humanity as having an eternal faculty — the soul — and even though there are different nations or races, all of mankind is made for eternity. Thus, while there are different roles and capacities conferred to the nations, all of them equally are spiritual beings called to come into theosis, or unity with God. The Christian faith, thus, transcends race, regardless from which of the patriarchs one is, be he Hamite, Semite or Japhethite. “All those who embrace the unity of the Catholic Church,” writes Pius XII, “whatever their race or their speech, may rest assured that they will have the full rights of sons in this house of our common Father, in which all live by the law and in the peace of Jesus Christ.” (22)
While there is the unity of mankind as a family, as in any family there is also the understanding of the particular roles given to its members. As Pius XII says:
“Every nation has its own genius, its own qualities, springing from the hidden roots of its being.” (23)
While he speaks of the particular capacities that people have, from which they contribute for civilization, he as well condemns the exaltation of any race. Before he was Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, writing with Pope Pius XI, wrote against racism:
“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community of power, — however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things — whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them … is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”
In speaking of the human family, and the roles of Ham, Shem and Japheth, some will use this as an argument against racial intermarriage. But how can such an argument be made, when some of the holiest of men married women outside of their race?
Moses married an Ethiopian woman, and when “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married” (Numbers 12:1), “the anger of the Lord was aroused against them” (Numbers 12:9) and “suddenly Miriam became leprous, as white as snow.” (Numbers 12:10)
The prophet Joseph married Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian pagan priest, and “to Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, whom Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On, bore to him.” (Genesis 41:50) Through the marriage of Joseph and Asenath, two tribes of Israel, Manasseh and Ephraim, were born (Genesis 46:20). Did God reject these two tribes because they were of a mixed marriage? No. Because its not about genetics, it is about a covenant. Since these children were from the line of Abraham, the covenant still followed.
Our fixation should not be on the genetics, rather it should be on the reality that we are a human family, and as in any family, we care for each other while understanding the particular roles given to each person.
Acknowledging the contributions that each member of Noah’s family gives to the other, while expressing condemnation against racialist pride, is truly the balance that we need against the eugenics of the identitarians, and the revolt of the marxists. The identitarian says: ‘Enslave Ham, deprive Ham of care, exploit Ham, and use him for experiments.’ The marxist says: ‘Ham, revolt against Japheth, and leave yourself open for exploitation.’
Both of these are malicious imbalances, that can only be destroyed by the equilibrium of the Ham, Shem and Japheth paradigm, which is not an argument for racism, rather it is the true argument against racism. Understanding the declaration that Noah made of his three sons, prevents exploitation, guarantees justice for both the one who is cared for, and the one who cares, and precludes the abuses that come after Ham revolts against his brothers.
When we realize that we are a family, destined to serve each other, then and only then, will we rid the world of the dysfunction that we see in between the races.
Therefore, we are not arguing that Ham must serve Shem and Japheth, but that Ham is always going to serve Shem and Japheth. We are left with two choices: either a servitude in which there is exploitation and enslavement, and the human race is seen as consisting of different sub-species, or an equilibrium in which there is a harmonious paradigm where Ham serves Japheth and Shem in one way, and Japheth and Shem serve Ham in another way, and where mankind is seen as a family. Shem was destined for glory, the glory of bringing forth the Messiah to Humanity; Japheth was destined for glory — the glory of guiding Christendom which would be a light to the world; Ham was destined for glory — the glory of giving that Order of Melchizedek, the Order of the Messiah — and the glory of serving his brothers.
CHRISTIANS ARE BEING KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE DAY, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION TO OUR RESCUE TEAM THAT WILL SAVE THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS FROM PERSECUTION
(1) See HJ Thomson, Prudentius, Scenes of History, III, ed. Loeb
(2) Josephus, Antiquities, 1.6.6
(3) Josephus, Antiquities, 1.6.4
(4) See Josephus, Antiquities, 1.64
(5) Josephus, Antiquities, 1.4.3, brackets mine
(6) Ambrose, letter xxxvii, to Simplician
(7) Vincent of Lerins, Commonitories, ch. 7, trans. Morris
(8) Augustine, City of God, book xvi, ch. 3, trans. Dods
(9) Ephraim Syrus, Hymns on the Nativity, hymn 1, trans. Morris
(10) Augustine, City of God, book xvi, ch. 2
(11) See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash
(12) Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, book 1, ch. xviii, trans. de Romestin
(13) Josephus, Wars, 6.10.1
(14) Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain, trans. Cohen
(15) Bernal Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain, trans. Cohen, brackets mine
(16) Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain, trans. Cohen
(17) Diaz, The Conquest of New Spain, trans. Cohen, brackets mine
(18) Gomara, Cortes, ch. 137, trans. Byrd Simpson
(19) Gomara, Cortes, ch. 148, trans. Byrd Simpson
(20) See Chateaubriand, The Genius of Christianity, book iv, ch. 5, pp. 578-579
(21) Pius XII, Darkness over the earth, ch. iii
(22) Pius XII, Darkness over the earth, ch. iii
(23) Pius XII, Darkness over the earth, ch. iii