OK, so we live in a crazy world – with all political parties trying to ‘score’ knock-out punches against their opponents. This is true here in the Great North … and among the political actors south of us. Often their words (… and their lies) are so over the top – you wonder if democracy is going to die right in front of us, in the daylight no less.
Well, this July, in an example of just how batty things can get, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chair of the Congressional ‘Progressive’ Caucus said, “Hey guys, can I say something? Can I say something as somebody that’s been in the streets and has participated in a lot of demonstrations? … I want you to know that we have been fighting to make it clear that Israel is a racist state…”
The statement was so utterly dumb, even for a progressive, that 43 House Democrats signed a statement, condemning Pramila’s remarks. How quickly people forget that one of every three Jews alive in 1939 were hated and murdered by 1945. Not surprisingly, she got blowback, so she tried the classic non-apology ‘walk back’ of her remarks … which is really code for trying to regain the political upper hand, save face … and pass the buck. I am surprised she did not plead, as Flip Wilson famously quipped, “the devil made me do it.” Listen to Jayapal’s interview with the Seattle Times and her ‘excuse’ for saying what she did:
“It’s not right to call out progressives, but then not recognize that most of us that get called out are women, Black, brown, immigrant. You cannot, you just cannot skip over that.”
There you go! Like a petulant child, “It’s not right,” she says. Did you notice the “US” word! It is not really her fault she said those inane words; it is really the fault of those who pick on women, blah, blah, blah … blah, blah! But try as she might to walk things back, Jayapal meant every word … every syllable. In the language of Scripture, our hearts and minds are inseparably connected, for as Jesus tellingly reminds us, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts … false testimony, slander." (Matthew 15:19). False testimony was a thought before it became an act. Slander was a thought before it became an act. And for Pramila “Israel is a racist state” was a thought before it was acted on and voiced. Hmm! Perhaps Jayapal is the racist in the article!
Proverbs 23:7 has politicians like Jayapal figured out. "For deep down he’s keeping track of the cost. He may say, 'Eat up! Drink your fill!' but he does not mean a word of it.'"
Voice Translation
The New York Times rushed to call Jayapal’s words a ‘misstep’, a ‘gaffe’ and Newsweek’s Omar Baddar, an Arabic political analysist stated emphatically, “Israel is indeed a racist state.”
Imagine! With one very, very wide brush, the entire nation is painted racist – Everyone! Every man, woman and child; every doctor, librarian and food bank employee; every Israeli Arab member of the Knesset and every Arab citizen of Israel. Amazing! To rephrase the 18th century Welch-born socialist and philanthropist, Robert Owen, are we to conclude that ‘the whole world is racist except thee and me, and even though art a little racist’? So now, along side Canada and the United States, two other systemically racist countries themselves, according to our Prime Minister and that fella in the White House, we can now add Israel to the mix.
Social media platforms remain the activist’s weapon
of choice to support fictional narratives that
reinforce their campaign that all whites are racist -
consciously or unconsciously.
In the chaos of activists and extremists condemning every nation occupied by whites, some have even gone as far as to say that the Bible itself is racist; a predictable outcome seems to me. But is that the reality behind the perception? My question is not whether the Bible has been mis-used in the past to justify slavery / racism. For example, in the Antebellum South (pre-American Civil War) there was a cruel and malignant disposition in its institutions and culture to leverage Scripture to support their cause. The question here rather is whether the Scriptures themselves are indeed racist. Is God the proponent of a racial doctrine by his election of Jews over others? Did the cursing of Noah’s son, Ham, (Genesis 9:18-27) lead to the founding of the Black race? When Moses is criticized by his brother and sister for marrying a Cushite woman (Numbers 12), was it because they were objecting to skin color?
Regrettably, these sorts of nagging ‘problems’ have led many Christians to forsake the Older Testament in its entirety – preferring the gentler, kinder, New Testament. Believers who jettison the Old, are in my view, ill-informed, and presumptuous. Can I add lazy? I find it astonishing that some believers can so cavalierly dismiss 77.2% of the Bible. I guess not “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable …” (2 Timothy 3:126-27).
The Witness of Scripture
People come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. Short, tall, fat, skinny, red, black and blond hair, big ears, small noses, big and small feet. What an amazing variety. Within this diversity, people have been grouped according to one or more common physical qualities they share – like facial features and skin color. Until recently, most folks called this race (an inexact term; there is only one race – the human one) and the features that define them, ‘racial characteristics’; thus, the beauty of Hispanic, African-America, Asian, White, and Middle Easterner, to name but a few. [1] ‘People groups’ is my preferrable term. Though some have made a cottage industry of racial packaging and division, that humans have much more in common genetically than they have differences, should not surprise us, given that Adam said that Eve was “the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). In this regard we are one race! Then came Babel and things changed, as we shall see!
Within my church tradition, I hear little teaching or conversations about race / racism, suggesting it is likely a topic too politically charged for the pulpit to handle. The proclivity of some to lay on others false, defamatory racial labels is understandably risky and problematic. Still, for racial equality to progress, we cannot miss the opportunity to lead our congregations to conclusions that are biblical, consistent with the Imago Dei in us and lead to reconciliation, transformative change, and justice. I encourage pastors to put their foot to the pedal of courage, lean in with humility and a good listening ear … and answer the call!
No group is better equipped to bring hope amid
such a contentious and divisive issue as racism
than the people of God, informed by Scripture.
Saying nothing diminishes our witness.
The Scriptures are always the first place to start, and from its viewpoint, we know that it is natural for mankind to live together in unity and peace. Indeed, from the beginning of creation and the appearance of Adam, the Bible demonstrates that God has both a plan and a salvation history for all peoples, for following the Fall, God resisted destroying man (unlike the Flood), offering instead universal mercy and a promise (Genesis 3:15) with worldwide prophetic significance.
The word ‘Adam’ in the Hebrew means ‘humankind’. His family are neither Hebrew or Egyptian, Black or White, Semitic or Non-semitic. As such, all ethnicities share a common mother and father.
In God’s creative action (Genesis 1) all humankind bears His ‘image’, meaning we share certain mental and spiritual attributes, making each of us special and separating us from the animal world over which we are to have dominion. No person, ethnicity or race is superior over another. As John Stott reminds us, “Both the dignity and the equality of all human beings are traced in Scripture to our creation.” [2]
Christ’s Great Commission of Matthew 28, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (ethnos = ethnic) was cross-cultural in its DNA. Given Israel’s prejudice of Gentiles, it seems clear that some form of ethnic or racial reconciliation took place among the disciples. Remember Peter’s reluctance to seek out the Gentiles (Acts 10)? God had to speak three times in a vision before he yielded.
Stephen in his speech before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:48) was clear to say that God is not bound to a certain place … mountain … river … or temple. Later when Paul was before the Areopagus (Acts 17) he not only repeated Stephen but added “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth” – reminding us that complementary unity in diversity is a good thing. Should that diversity lead to conflict and division – well, it is foreign and unnatural!
The genealogy of Jesus, the Messiah and our Savior, in Matthew 1, highlights the unique details of His ancestry – containing both women and non-Jews: Tamar, who seduces her father-in-law to perpetuate the line of Er (Genesis 38); Rahab (Joshua 2), a wall-dwelling Canaanite prostitute; Ruth a Moabite (Ruth 1:3) and Bathsheba, who was likely a Hittite like her husband, Uriah (2 Samuel 11:3). These were all ancestors of Jesus. Talk about ethnic diversity! Jesus, of mixed blood, certainly is the Savior for the entire world.
The fact that Jesus’ bloodline was ethnically diverse,
undermines any attempt at leveraging the Bible to prohibit interracial marriages.
Is the Bible Racist?
Of course, none of these details has kept folks from condemning Scripture for what they see as racial bias on God’s part, as surmised in God’s election of the Jews and the supposed cursing of Ham (Black race?), to pick two from a long list. The litany of accusations against God’s racial prejudice, leaves some people, even believers, nervous ... very nervous. A deeper dive into Scripture however should dispel the worries of all, except perhaps those most antagonistic to a sovereign God or even the idea of God. The subject is an enormous one, but reasonable limits to this blog compel me to consider only a couple of commonly used Bible passages that have reached false conclusions.
The Election of Israel:
Genesis 11 describes a time when mankind, in their challenge to the sovereignty of God, (a) ignored his command to “fill the earth” (9:1), and (b) chose to build a false temple (Tower of Babel) to their collective aspirations to control their own destiny. They would build and climb until they were just like God. Notice the stark contrast between the ‘let us’ of Genesis 1: 26-28 and the ‘let us’ of Genesis 11:3-4. As descendants of Ham (Genesis 10:6-10) … not Shem, they intended to make a ‘name for ourselves’ (11:4) by becoming Shem (Hebrew for ‘name / fame’). Nothing less than a ‘great name’ (Genesis 12:2) would do, so it seemed. God will not have it and in a divine-human encounter, He moves them toward His divine objective and scatters them. His corrective action creates a diversity that God cherishes–different families, different languages, different cultures (10:5, 20, 31). Centuries later, the confusion of Babel would be made good by the miracle of Pentecost.
“The idea of a chosen people does not suggest the preference for a people based upon a discrimination among a number of peoples.”
Abraham Heschel, God in Search of Man (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1956), pp. 423-426.
Genesis 12 builds on the failures in chapter 11 and moves us to the election of Israel through covenant. What could not be achieved collectively, will be accomplished singularly. It was God’s sovereign choice, combined with Abraham’s faith that gave the Jews this elect distinction as a people -- to the purpose of uniting mankind into a single spiritual people, His Church and demonstrating His promise-keeping character to the entire world. Likewise, later when Isaac was designated a son and heir of Abraham, the patriarch of the Jewish faith, it is note worthy to see that it was not at the cost of Ishmael, the non-Jew (Genesis 21:12-13; Romans 9:7), for he was blessed as well.
Even when the pride of men moved God to transfer His plan of grace to one family and one people, through the election of Abraham, the universal purpose of God is explicitly announced: “In you shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). This design is never entirely lacking in the history of Israel.
Israel’s chosen-ness in scripture is invariably linked to mission; a means to a final end! Israel is to be the center of God’s salvation plan of spiritual reconciliation for this world and thus for the nations (Isaiah 2:1-5; Romans 11:12,15). Later, in the language of the New Testament, the apostle Paul would speak of a ‘dividing wall of hostility’ (Second Temple illustration) between Jews and non-Jews (the nations) and triumphantly declares that Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, “created in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace” (Ephesians 2:15). God’s election of Israel was missional from its origins. Regrettably, today’s culture wars and identity politics are fractious and risk blinding us to this truth. There was no racist significance in God’s choice.
The Curse of Ham
Genesis 9:18-29 reads like a good soap opera: nudity, sex and dysfunctional families. But there lurks a more nefarious reading of the story – one that has justified the racist carnage of the Crusades through to the dark days of slavery and segregation in Britain and America.
After the floodwaters receded, Noah plants a vineyard, gets drunk, and when over-heated by the alcohol, he strips and passes out in his tent. Ham sees his father’s nakedness, tells his brothers, Shem and Japheth, who walk backwards into the tent and cover their father without seeing him. When Noah wakes from his stupor, he seems to intuitively know what Ham had done to him (v. 24) and curses Ham’s son Canaan, saying he will be a “servant of servants” (v. 25) – the quintessential slave in bondage to Shem and Japheth.
Many have seen this story as the most racially charged, single greatest justification for Black slavery, of the entire Hebrew Bible – even though it makes no mention of race! [3]. Sadly, even Christians have used this passage to justify their racism, supported by the Scofield Study Bible of 1917 which saw Genesis 9 through racist lens. But does Genesis 9 deserve a racist reading? No! Not at all. Consider:
Neither Noah or his family are described in racial terms. The story of Genesis 9 does not describe anyone as black or changes of physical features. It is only much later that some saw a racial hierarchy in the text.
The Hebrew word ‘Ham’ does not mean ‘Dark, Black or Heat,’ and is of unknown etymology.
The ‘curse’ is on Canaan (the eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites), Ham’s son and Noah’s grandson … and not on Ham’s three other descendants - Cush, Egypt and Put or their descendants (Genesis 10:6-9). This is significant in that Cush (Cushites), mentioned 54 times, is identified with those of Nubian, sub-Sahara, black African descent. Nimrod, son of Cush, the grandson of Ham, was one of the world’s first recognized world rulers
Just as Ham disgraced his father, so Canaan would disgrace his father, Ham. Ham is not cursed – Canaan is, and only Canaan. Whether Ham sodomized his father is a separate issue.
Noah curses Canaan, not God. In fact, in Genesis 9:1, God blesses all three of Noah’s sons, even creating a covenant with them and their descendants (Genesis 9:9). Nowhere is God seen taking this blessing away – meaning God’s blessing overrides any curse of man, including Noah’s.
The Canaanites who lived in the land of Canaan were not black. Likewise, there is no evidence that blacks are descendants of Canaan.
The ‘curse’ on Ham is nothing but an assumed
biblical justification for a curse of eternal slavery
on black people and black people alone. People have simply interpolated the assumptions and prejudices
of their time into the Biblical text.
Genesis 9:25-27 is an etiological story because its purpose is to explain something by giving a cause or reason for it. Prior to Israel’s conquest, the land was occupied by Canaanites and not his brothers. Singling out the curse of Canaan theologically explained Israel's conquest of them.
By the time the Book of Genesis enjoyed its final form, Canaan would have already been conquered – making Noah’s curse a theological after-the-fact explanation. Nothing more!
As a distinct ethnic group, Canaanites no longer exist, including Phoenicians, Edomites, Moabites or Ammonites. Even if it was believed that their genetic heritage lives on in modern-day Jews and Arabs, none are black. The curse is no longer relevant!
In his ground-breaking book, David M. Goldenberg, a historian, spent 13 years investigating every reference to blacks from ancient Israel (ca. 800 B.C.E) to the eighth century C.E., after the birth of Islam. He concluded that in biblical and post-biblical Judaism there is no anti-black, racist or color prejudice; that the curse of Ham originated not in the Hebrew Bible but from the link between black skin color and slavery that occurred precisely in 7th century Arabia after the Islamic conquest of Africa (p. 170). [See, ''The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam'' (Princeton University Press, 2003)].
There is no evidence that biblical Israel saw black Africans in a negative light. Said another way, there is no color-based identity in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, before the 16th or 17th century, any racial interpretation of Ham is missing.
Anyone can be a racist – anyone! No one, regardless of skin color stands guiltless. To illustrate, Africa, the epi-center of todays modern day slavery, appears to have given rise to a coherent racism to justify the enslavement of its own people (i.e., state sponsored forced labor, forced marriage, forced child-soldiers). I am sometimes bemused that some would absolve non-whites. Sorry, but there are no exemptions! In the face of my statement, some civil liberty activists in Canada like to play the ‘myth’ of the reverse racism card, parsing words to gain their advantage (i.e. racial prejudice vs racism). I would call their efforts, straining at a gnat, for just because a group may not have power to discriminate against another group, does not permit them to indulge in their racist activity. Again, all races can be instigators – a testament to just how fractured, even broken, we are as a society.
Has the church had a role in fostering false perceptions of the Bible’s racism … been indifferent to racial inequalities and defended it as a natural, God-ordained order? No disagreement here, for its legacy of complacency and complicity– whether in the seedbed of mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, or Catholic assemblies, is real. Such a ‘Christian’ worldview is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and we need to find the humility, courage to admit it. While we are at it, we need to revisit the Book of Ephesians with its emphasis on the reconciling work of Christ and how it impacted our relationship with God … and each other.
Can we say, “the Bible is racist?” No! Though there are some passages that make for uncomfortable reading (i.e. Ezra 9), we should remind ourselves often that “there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free men, between men and women: you [we] are all one in union with Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 3:28).
Our identity ‘in Christ’ makes us all part of the ‘family of God’. If we understand Paul’s theology, this ‘in Christ-ness’ should overshadow and override all other identities.
Racism is an evil deception and there is nothing in Scripture that warrants any sort of hierarchal pigeon-holing of God’s creation of mankind. Our dignity and equality appeared at creation, and though sin has marred and scarred us, thankfully it is not irreparable. Indeed, I find the biblical record about our future, encouraging! Seven times in the Book of Revelation (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15) we encounter this four-fold group – from “every nation, tribe, people and language” - a symbolic reminder that in the world (4) to come there will be a completeness (7) of God’s redeemed peoples – AND … as we gather to worship, all will have their ethnic / cultural identities fully intact (Revelation 7:9). Who knows – maybe even Pramila Jayapal, the democrat will be there! “OnlySaying…”
[1] More recently, some scholars have started to argue that races are “cultural intervention reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century” (Britannica). I have heard this argued before by activists saying male and female is really a cultural thing; that gender fluidity is an ever-shifting shape of identity.
[2] John R. W. Stott, Human Rights and Human Wrongs: Major Issues for a New Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 174-75.
[3] “The racist interpretation of the curse of Ham is not confined to a single religious tradition but spans all three Abrahamic religions alike see (Peterson 1978; Haynes 2000, 2002); for Jewish interpretations, (Goldenberg 2003); for Muslim interpretations, (Evans 1980, pp. 26–34; Bashir 2019); for debates about the Rabbinic origins of the racist interpretation, see (Copher 1991; Aaron 1995; McKenzie 1997; Alpert 2013)). Arguably, no other sacred text in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism has been misused and abused in the interest of racism more than the curse of Ham in Gen 9:18–29.”
Comments