Kingdom Alert Update #225

************************
TABLE OF CONTENTS
************************
-FROM THE EDITOR

-THE SLAVERY ARGUMENT: MARCHING TO HELL UNDER THE BANNER OF EQUAL RIGHTS
(PART 3- CONCLUSION)
================================================================

********************
FROM THE EDITOR
********************
-I have not been able to send out the Kingdom Alert the past few weeks. My
wife’s parents have both had some medical problems. We drove to Nevada to
see her father. Please mention them in your prayers.

-In an upcoming Kingdom Alert I will answer Jack Van Impe’s (and
Rexalla’s) new video review of my book, “The Rod: Will God Spare It?”
After spending much time expressing shock at the great preachers who have
believed in Millennial Exclusion, Van Impe perfumes Rome’s Purgatory,
rejects Millennial Exclusion, and offers his own view of 1007 years of
TEARS for unfaithful Christians. Be watching!

-Order THE ROD: WILL GOD SPARE IT? (now with Scripture Index!)
http://www.fundamentalbooks.com or call: 1-877-70-BOOKS.

-Join us for our New Years’ Eve Prophecy Watch Night at Kingdom Baptist
Church. Wednesday, Dec. 31st, as we keep track of how fast things are
moving and review the year in light of stage-setting for Bible prophecy.

================================================================

THE SLAVERY ARGUMENT: MARCHING TO HELL UNDER THE BANNER OF EQUAL RIGHTS
(PART 3- CONCLUSION)

I have already mentioned the various e-mails I have received from
homosexuals using slavery as an argument against fundamentalism. Recently,
when street-preaching outside a “black-tie dinner” that raised funds for
homosexual groups, a homosexual woman rolled down her car window and
shouted these words: “I am a Catholic! What about SLAVERY!” Somehow, she
has linked Christian fundamentalism with 19th-century slave-masters; yet
she is very ignorant of the large role that her Catholicism and infidel
science played in pro-slavery thought! (Although Muslim exegetes had
defended slavery on the basis of Genesis 9 in the ninth and tenth
centuries, the modern slave trade in the West was spawned by ROME. In 1454
the king of Portugal, under the authority of the Roman popes, enslaved
many of the coastal villages of Africa.) Likewise, in discoursing and
disputing with some local high-school students who were defending a
homosexual club at their school, the subject of Christian fundamentalism
and slavery arose REPEATEDLY. It is primarily for this reason that I have
put forth this study.

Anti-fundamentalists, such as the modern homosexuals, evolutionists,
liberals (religious and political) etc., like to pretend that they are
simply carrying the same torch that the early abolitionists carried in
their fight against American slavery. To counter this, we have noticed the
pro-slavery, Catholic influence upon the Confederacy (of which a great
deal more might be said), which taught many in the South to excuse
man-stealing and chattel slavery in a Jesuitical fashion (the poor Irish
Catholics in the North had little influence before the war; and mass
immigration did not “Romanize” the North until after the Civil War).We
have noticed the unbiblical views of the “enlightened” infidel scientists
and philosophers, who offered the South a “scientific” justification for
slavery. We have also noticed the general hardening of the South after
1830. This hardening is seen in the fact that the South began to see
slavery as the very “cornerstone” of the republic (e.g. Alexander H.
Stephens in 1861). Along this line, Jefferson Davis, on the eve of the
Civil War, proclaimed that slavery was:

“…promotive of, if not ESSENTIAL to, the preservation of the higher
orders of republican civilization.” (“Works,” IV, 49-50)

THE SOUTHERN MIND

When discussing the hardening of the South, we should however, pause for a
moment, and note that the views of these rich, political leaders were not
necessarily the views of the majority of people in the South. By the time
of the Civil War, the majority of slave owners had INHERITED less than 20
slaves, and these servants had practically become part of their master’s
families. The large plantation owners had become the dominant political
influence. One proof of the organized, political power of these plantation
owners is seen in the fact that so many in the South (even those with
anti-emancipation views) actually opposed the Southern rebellion. Many had
to make a choice between fighting or prison. These facts are documented in
works such as Bryan Tyson’s “The Institution of Slavery in the Southern
States…in Connection with Our Sectional Troubles.” Tyson (an
anti-emancipationist and North Carolinian) wrote at the start of the war.
The following is an excerpt from his booklet:

“To my Southern Countrymen….What have your politicians and the
secessionists promised you? They promised you that it should be a
peaceable secession. Some of their speeches asserted that they would pay
the cost of the war for ten cents; others that they would wipe up all the
blood that would be spilt with a pocket handkerchief; and others still
more generous, said they would agree to drink all the blood that would be
spilt….After getting a goodly number of you to volunteer, they soon got
the war started, and after getting that started, they soon devised means
for forcing the remainder of you into the army. They did this first by the
draft, and then subsequently and more completely by the unjust
conscription. Even those of you, who had been bitterly opposed to
secession…and whom they had denied the rights of freemen in not
permitting you to vote directly upon this all-important subject, they now,
by their unjust legislation, compelled to take up arms, and go forth and
fight the battles of the war that they had themselves inaugurated,
sometimes even hunting you down, casting you in prison….was it justice
that our politicians largely in the minority, should thus of their own
arbitrary power legislate away, as it were, your lives…?….Therefore,
as our politicians thought proper to bring on this war without consulting
you, I now think it would be fair and just for you to end the war without
consulting them….the next time they wish to secede, let them consult the
masses of the people….”

Such words as these are provided to show that Southern thought cannot be
neatly packaged under one heading. What a sad, confusing period this was!
It is sin that brings such confusion. And although there were
opportunities for colonization in Liberia and Haiti, which would have
answered every excuse and objection for not freeing slaves, it all came
down to MONEY. “Who is going to pay me for my property?” The rich slave
owners were not going to give up their slaves (free labor), any more than
Las Vegas will give up gambling today! But by not endorsing colonization,
the South (to prevent insurrection) was forced to pass strict laws to keep
slaves from being educated and from meeting together (e.g., see “The
Police Control of the Slave in South Carolina,” by H. M. Henry, 1914).
Thus, the religious instruction of the slaves was greatly hindered, honest
work was despised as being for Negroes, and slave owners lived in constant
fear of murder and insurrection. In spite of all these consequences and
strife, political leaders increasingly justified slavery from the Bible.

GENESIS 9 AND SLAVERY

The pro-slavery views put forth by many Southern, political leaders
(highly influenced by the large plantation owners), could not be presented
to the public on infidel-scientific grounds alone. American slavery,
therefore, came to be not only explained, but excused from the BIBLE.
Chiniquy (1886), refers to the “Memoirs of Bateman” (superintendent of
Public Instruction for the State of Illinois), wherein Abraham Lincoln is
quoted as saying:

“It seems as if God had borne with slavery until the very teachers of
religion had come to DEFEND IT FROM THE BIBLE, and to claim for it a
Divine character and sanction. And now the cup of iniquity is full, and
the vials of wrath will be poured out.”

The Biblical text generally used to justify enslaving Negroes in America
was Genesis 9. Let us therefore examine this chapter, and then notice how
it has been used to defend slavery.

In Genesis 9:1, God blesses Noah and ALL of his three sons in the new
world. The Bible then tells us:

Genesis 9:21 And he [Noah] drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was
uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and
told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their
shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father;
and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

Drinking fermented wine often leads to nakedness (Habakkuk 2:15). For this
reason, and many others, the Bible warns against even LOOKING at fermented
wine (Proverbs 23: 31). We are not told whether Noah’s drunken state was
due to error, or sin; nor are we informed as to whether Ham’s looking was
accidental, or sinful. Assuming the best, it appears that Ham’s actual sin
was in his RESPONSE to his father’s nakedness. He did not quickly turn
away and do what he could to help his father in his shameful condition.
Instead, he “told his brethren.” To merit the curse upon his son, the
“telling” was obviously disrespectful and full of mockery (Proverbs 18:8,
30:17). The conduct of Shem and Japheth in HIDING their EYES clearly
reveals that the phrase “saw the nakedness of his father,” does not refer
to homosexuality or incest in Genesis 9. Ham did not “uncover” anything
(Leviticus 18:6). Noah was already “uncovered,” and Ham SAW that he was
so. In contrast, his brethren did NOT see the nakedness of their father.
The Bible then continues:

Genesis 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son
had DONE unto him.

Noah obviously knew it was his younger son Ham who had sinned against him,
because Shem and Japheth TOLD him. They told him that Ham had mocked him,
and possibly looked upon him in a deriding manner. Thus, Noah, “knew what
his younger son had done unto him.” “Done” refers to the “mocking”
(Numbers 22:28-29). And the subsequent curse upon Ham’s son, simply for
his mocking, is no more “severe” than Elisha cursing the forty-two “little
children” that MOCKED him! They were mauled by she bears (2 Kings
22:23-24, Romans 11:22)! David’s son also died because of David’s own sins
(2 Samuel 12:14). And in the amazing sovereignty and omniscience of God,
the CANAANITES were actually worthy of their dispossession and
enslavement, though it had been foretold, and their punishment determined,
years before. In God’s mercy, He waited until their iniquity was full
(e.g. Genesis 15:16).

Around the world, increasingly, multitudes are gathering for various
protests and causes stark naked (Revelation 16:15)! Even modern, Christian
churches are filled with partial nudity. It is proof that any race, tribe
or nation will soon degenerate to sodomy, brutality, bestiality and
cannibalism if it continues in pride and idolatry (Romans 1). The blonde,
Germanic tribes of Europe had degenerated to such a degree of sin that
they were cannibalistic, savage fornicators, without clothes, practicing
human sacrifice! And if more commentators would rightly use Genesis 9 to
teach against drunkenness, nakedness, and disrespect to authority, (the
seeds which soon sprout into such depraved sins as sodomy, etc.), we might
do a better job of delaying the inevitable degeneration of our society to
utter savagery (Romans 13:14). Rome (Japheth) was rebuked by its own pagan
poets for becoming practically savage when it began to fall to savage,
cannibalistic invaders (Japheth). Joseph Seiss (the great, premillennial
expositor), during the perils of 1861, preached:

“…the Anglo-Saxon race is an embodiment of the same depraved humanity
found everywhere upon earth, only a little better cloaked with Pharisaism,
a little more thoroughly pervaded with Satanic subtilty, daring falsehood,
and the spirit of worldly gain…and a little in advance of apostate
nations on their way to the judgments of God Almighty….”(1)

Let all races, nations, and peoples therefore fear, and know that idolatry
corrupts! And light becomes lightning when it is ignored.

Now, notice the famous curse of Genesis 9:

Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be CANAAN; a servant of servants shall he
be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and CANAAN shall be his
servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and
CANAAN shall be his servant.

As can be seen, the prophetic curse is only upon ONE of Ham’s sons. It is
a punishment upon Ham in the same sense as David’s child dying was a
punishment upon him (2 Samuel 12:14). However, ALL of David’s offspring
with Bathsheba did not die. Solomon was soon born (2 Samuel 12:24), and he
lived to a ripe, old age.

Ham had THREE other sons beside Canaan:

Genesis 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

Some of their geographical allotments are generally defined by Torrey:

“To the Cushites, or descendants of CUSH, were allotted the hot southern
regions of Asia, along the shores of the Persian Gulf…; to the sons of
CANAAN, Palestine and Syria; to the sons of MIZRAIM, Egypt and Libya, in
Africa.”(2)

Egypt in the Bible is referred to as the “land of Ham” (Psalms 105:23).
M’Clintock and Strong’s “Cyclopedia” (1890) states:

“The ancient Hebrew name Mizraim is still preserved in the abbreviated
form Muzr, the existing Arabic name of Egypt.”

Scholars, citing ancient sources, usually divide Africa between Phut and
Mizraim, both sons of Ham. Josephus states that Phut settled in Libya.
Cush (i.e. Ethiopia) appears to have spread to Africa (south of Egypt) as
well as to Arabia. From Cush were descended the ancient Ethiopians
(Nubians, Abyssinians, etc.).

The Canaanites, of course, inhabited Palestine. And Joseph Mede
(1586-1638) reveals the general agreement among researchers that their
descendants included the Carthaginians:

“…the Carthaginians were of Tyre, and the offspring of Canaan….That
the Carthaginians were originally of the stock or offspring of Canaan (the
son of Ham, whose posterity possessed all Africk, besides some part of
Asia,) is generally agreed…”(3)

William Hales (1747-1831), the Irish chronologist, in, “A New Analysis of
Chronology” (1818), states that the Hamites:

“…sooner arrived at civilization and the luxuries of life than their
simpler pastoral and agricultural brethren of the other two families. The
first great empires of Assyria and Egypt were founded by them…”

Thus, we see Nimrod (the son of Cush, and grandson of Ham), who began to
be mighty on the earth and establish his kingdom (the first world empire)
of Babel:

Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the
earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as
Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of HIS KINGDOM WAS BABEL, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh…

“…Nimrod of the house of CUSH made himself lord of Mesopotamia.”(4)

And we have already seen that the kingdom of Egypt was founded by Ham
and/or his son Mizraim. Far from being “servants of servants” (like
Canaan), for nearly two-thousand years the world was ruled by descendants
of Ham and Shem. After this, the prophecy concerning Japheth was fulfilled
when Persia, Greece and Rome arose to rule the world:

Genesis 9:27 God shall ENLARGE Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

There is evidence that this present age (from the fall of Jerusalem to the
rapture) is HIDDEN to Old Testament prophecy (behold the “gap” in Daniel
9, etc.). Direct prophecies concerning this age (before the Tribulation
period) are only found in the New Testament Epistles (2 Timothy 3, etc.).
Thus, Old Testament prophecy forecasts events up to the fall of Jerusalem
(A.D. 70), and then skips to the Tribulation Period, the Millennium, etc.
The implied prophecy that Shem would find the true God (i.e. the
revelation to Abraham and the Jews), that Canaan would be ruled by Shem
and Japheth, and that Japheth would finally be enlarged and would dominate
the world was entirely fulfilled throughout the Old Testament age, and
part of the New Testament age, ending at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
In the 1759, the excellent, premillennial commentator, Thomas Newton
(1703-1784) wrote:

“The descendants therefore of Canaan were to be subject to the descendants
of both Shem and Japheth….it was several centuries after the delivering
of this prophecy, when the Israelites, who were descendants of Shem, under
the command of Joshua invaded the Canaanites, smote above thirty of their
kings, took possession of their land, slew several of their inhabitants,
made the Gibeonites and others servants and tributaries, and Solomon
afterwards subdued the rest (2 Chron. 8:7-9)….The Greeks and Romans too,
who were descendants of Japheth, not only subdued Syria and Palestine, but
also pursued and conquered such of the CANAANITES as were anywhere
REMAINING, as for instance the Tyrians and the CARTHAGINIANS, the former
who were ruin’d by Alexander and the Grecians, and the latter by Scipio
and the Romans.”(5)

Jonathan Edwards, in 1791, wrote:

“This curse [Genesis 9] then of the posterity of CANAAN, had no reference
to the inhabitants of Guinea, or of Africa in general, but was fulfilled
partly in Joshua’s time, in the reduction and servitude of the Canaanites,
and especially of the Gibeonites; partly by what the Phoenicians suffered
from the Chaldeans, Persians and Greeks; and finally by what the
Carthaginians suffered from the Romans.”(6)

The ancient rise and fall of the kingdoms of Ham (Babel, Assyria, Egypt,
etc.), Shem (Chaldean Babylonia, etc.) and Japheth (Persia, Greece and
Rome) certainly prove that both Jews and GENTILES are all under sin
(Romans 3:9, 1:21).

Although it could be argued that Japheth has apparently continued his
enlarging throughout the past 2000 years of this present age, it is also
true that in this age, BLINDNESS in part has fallen upon Israel (i.e.
Shem). And there is no evidence that there have been any “Canaanites” for
Shem or Japheth to enslave for many centuries. But, for the sake of
argument, if it could be proven that Genesis 9 also applies to this
present age, and if it could be proven that the African victims of the
slave-trade were “Canaanites,” these things would offer no more
justification for the enslaving of Negroes than a man could have offered
David if he had chose to personally fulfill Nathan’s prophetic curse (2
Samuel 12:14) by killing David and Bathsheba’s child with his own hands!
Prophetic curses do not always justify those who fulfill them (see
Absalom’s raping of David’s wives, 2 Samuel 12:11, 16:22)! Thus, even if
one could prove that Negroes in Africa were “Canaanites,” it would no more
justify stealing them away for INVOLUNTARY slavery than Absalom was
justified for fulfilling the prophecy upon David by raping his father’s
wives!

Along this line, the Bible prophesied that the Serpent would “bruise his
heel” (Genesis 3:15). This is a prophecy of the Crucifixion of Jesus. The
Crucifixion was in God’s plan, and under His Sovereignty and foreknowledge
for the purpose of redeeming us (Acts 2:23). Yet, the same Bible calls the
hands that crucified Jesus “wicked” (Acts 2:23). God’s prediction did not
EXCUSE the Serpent, Judas, the Jews, or anyone else involved in the
crucifixion of our Lord. Likewise, the prophecy that Canaan shall serve
Japheth does not give the descendants of Japheth a free pass to
indiscriminately, at any point in the future, enslave anyone on the
continent of Africa that is a descendant of Ham.

Likewise, the prophecy in Genesis 16:12, which states that every man’s
hand will be against Ishmael, does not give every person in the world the
RIGHT to treat the descendants of Ishmael contrary to justice. Jonathan
Edwards wrote:

“It is indeed generally taught that Ham peopled Africa. But that the curse
on Canaan extended to all the posterity of Ham, is a MERE
IMAGINATION….in every case in which judgments are predicted concerning
any nation or family…He who had the right to curse the whole of [Ham's]
posterity, had the same right to curse A PART OF IT ONLY…Therefore, we
have no ground to believe, that this curse respected any others, than the
posterity of CANAAN….We have a particular account, that all the sons of
Canaan settled in the land of Canaan; as may be seen in Gen. x.15-20…Nor
have we account that any of their posterity except the Carthaginians
afterward removed to any part of Africa….Therefore this curse gives us
no right to enslave the Africans, as we do by the slave trade, because it
has no respect to the Africans whom we enslave. Nor if it had respected
them, would it have given any such right, because it was not an
institution of slavery, but a mere prophecy of it. And from this prophecy
we have no more ground to infer the right of slavery, than we have from
the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, or by the
Romans, to infer their right respectively to destroy it in the manner they
did….the apostles teach the general duties of servants who are
RIGHTEOUSLY in the state of servitude, as many are or may be, by hire, by
indenture, and by judgment of a civil court….Great Britain in her late
attempt to enslave America, committed a very small crime indeed in
comparison with the crime of those who enslave the Africans.”(7)

Instead of fulfilling the Great Commission, many of our forefathers sinned
by excusing “menstealing” (1 Timothy 1:10). When the cup was full God
judged the sin. By ignoring and rejecting better plans for ending slavery,
which would have lessened the degenerating effects upon a nation already
plagued by its own apostasy (e.g. modernism, higher criticism,
rationalism, Catholicism, cults, etc.), the South provoked God to end it
Himself. God still rules in the affairs of men. And the Bible is full of
holy men (who were presently suffering from consequences from earlier
generations) repenting for the sins of their forefathers (Daniel 9:11,
etc.), and declaring that God has been just in His chastisements (Nehemiah
9:33). It would be wise to follow their example:

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for
peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which
minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a
good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

But there are those who would benefit politically by stirring up racial
strife, and foolish, hurtful jesting in our churches (Ephesians 5:4). The
Devil knows how to raise up one monster with horns on one side of the boat
(e.g. Jesse Jackson, NAACP, etc.) so people will be “filled with
amazement” and frantically jump off the other side!

Genesis 9 predicted and decreed that the Canaanites would be servants of
servants. This was fulfilled. The Canaanites soon experienced the loss of
their lives, land and liberty by DIRECT, Divine sanction (Joshua 3:10).
God’s general sovereignty rules in the rise and fall of nations (Daniel
4:17); yet, in the case of the Canaanites, He DIRECTLY decreed their
annihilation by revelation to the Israeli army. This is a different case
than the rise of Nebuchadnezzar to afflict Israel and destroy God’s
temple. God prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would arise; and God used him
as His servant to accomplish His will against His people (Jeremiah 27:6).
Yet, God later took vengeance on Babylon for doing so (Jeremiah 51:11).
But He did not take vengeance on Israel for destroying the Canaanites, or
for later enslaving them (1 Kings 9:21). God not only prophesied the
destruction and removal of the Canaanites from their land and liberty
(Genesis 9), He later DIRECTLY COMMISSIONED it to Israel (i.e. Shem). The
later judgment upon the Phoenicians and Carthaginians (descendants of
Canaanites) by the Persians, Grecians and Romans (i.e. Japheth) was indeed
a fulfillment of PROPHECY (Genesis 9), but it was not directly
commissioned.

Therefore, slavery in America could not be justified from the Scriptures
for the following additional reasons:

1. There is no evidence that blacks in Africa were/are Canaanites. The
Biblical and historical evidence points against it. Black ministers in
America professed to be from Cush and Mizraim. Furthermore, to show the
folly of using Genesis 9 to justify African slavery, there was no attempt
by slave traders to distinguish between Cushites and Canaanites when
capturing and enslaving Africans.

2. Even if Canaanites could have been found and proven, there would still
have been no justified reason to enslave them, anymore than Peter, James
and John would have been justified for chaining up and enslaving Simon the
CANAANITE (Matthew 10:4), the twelfth disciple! Could the reader imagine
Peter looking at Jesus in John 13 and saying, “Lord, let Simon the
CANAANITE wash my feet. The curse of servitude is upon him. He will never
be truly happy until he takes his proper place and accepts his curse.”
Jesus refuted such thinking (John 13:14-15, Mark 9:25). Should Barnabas,
or other leaders at Antioch, have enslaved “Simeon that was called NIGER
(i.e. black),” if it was possible to overcome him? If not, then it follows
that there was no moral right for Americans to enslave Africans on the
basis of Genesis 9. The civil law has no more ability to make buying
stolen goods (or people) morally LEGAL than it has to make killing the
unborn morally legal.

3. If the descendants of Japheth are justified anytime they desire to
enslave the descendants of Canaan (pretending they may be found), then the
descendants of Japheth are also justified in possessing the homes of the
descendants of Shem anytime they please.

4. If the curse in Genesis 9 is upon all the descendants of Ham, and
American slavery was justified, then it follows that Japheth does not at
anytime have the right to ignore the alleged responsibility of insuring
that Ham is enslaved by him. God has called fathers and husbands to rule
in love. To abuse these positions in cruelty is sin. However, it is also
sin for a father to REFRAIN FROM RULING (1 Samuel 3:13, 1 Kings 1:6,
Proverbs 19:18, 1 Timothy 3:5). Therefore, if American slavery was
justified on the basis of Genesis 9, then there are many preachers today
who have sinned by not preaching that Japheth has the right and the
RESPONSIBILITY to enslave blacks. For example, if the government ever
tells obedient Christians that they are no longer permitted to rule their
children or wives in love, according to the Scriptures, obedient
Christians will be imprisoned or die rather than neglect their Divine
responsibility before God to lead and rule their homes. Those who
therefore believe that Genesis 9 gives the right to enslave all Africans
should likewise resist any opposition. And this what some did in the Civil
War. But since the Civil War, there have been nothing but veiled
(sometimes in partial jesting) comments concerning Genesis 9 and Ham. If
Japheth has the right to enslave Ham, and American slavery was justified,
then it follows that Japheth still has the right to enslave Ham today.
Therefore, let the mumbling, muffled preachers say so! However, the truth
is that the words in Genesis 9 are prophetic in regard to Canaan, and they
were fulfilled by Israel and the four kingdoms of Daniel 2. Yet, only
Israel had a direct, Divine sanction to fulfill the prophecy.

There were some political leaders who assumed, with no proof offered, that
blacks in America were descendants of CANAAN. Yet, they did not tell us on
what grounds they were permitted to fulfill a prophecy of chastisement
upon others. As we have noticed, Scripture offers many examples of
prophecies of chastisement, which do not excuse the sins of those who, in
God’s Providence, were used as instruments to fulfill the prophecies. God
uses the Devil and the Antichrist to inflict prophesied judgments. Yet, he
also throws them into the Lake of Fire! In 1861, Alexander H. Stephens
(Vice President of the Confederacy) attempted to defend slavery on a
scientific and BIBLICAL basis:

“Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain
classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in
violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of
nature’s laws. The negro by nature, or BY THE CURSE AGAINST CANAAN, is
fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.”

Jefferson Davis likewise justified slavery on the basis of the curse
against CANAAN (e.g. April 12, 1860, Senate speech). In 1818, S.C. Senator
William Smith (who believed that slavery was a right and a benefit)
stated:

“This very African race are descendants of Canaan.”

CHANGING THE BIBLE

Proving that all blacks were descendants of Canaan was both impossible and
absurd. It was against the Bible, history and true science. It was
therefore necessary to search the history of scholarship in an attempt to
undermine the COMMON BIBLE (the Authorized Version). If the curse of
servitude could be placed on HAM (and therefore on all of the black race),
it was felt that Southern slavery could be more easily justified. It is
not improper to speak of “Ham’s curse,” if we define Ham’s curse to be
that ONE of his sons (i.e. Canaan) was cursed to servitude. Yet, it is
improper to define Ham’s curse as meaning that ALL of his descendants must
suffer perpetual servitude. History shows that the Hamitic kingdoms were
the first to rule the world and prosper. Yet, the Canaanites (one branch
of Ham) were checked in their rise to worldwide dominion and prosperity by
Israel, and later by Rome (when Hannibal was defeated).

Joseph Mede (the great, premillennial commentator of Britain in the 17th
century) calls attention to a detail, which would later be used by
pro-slavery scholars in the 19th century to justify Southern slavery:

“Ham was the father of Canaan, and the LXX for Canaan sometimes put
HAM…”(8)

In the 1759, Thomas Newton unfortunately made mention of some information
that would later become one of the primary arguments to justify slavery in
the 19th century:

“Hitherto we have explained the prophecy according to the present copies
of OUR BIBLE: but IF we CORRECT THE TEXT, as we should any ancient classic
author in like case, the whole perhaps might be made easier and
plainer….The ARABIC VERSION in these verses hath ‘the father of Canaan’
instead of Canaan. Some copies of the Septuagint likewise have ‘Ham’
instead of Canaan, as if ‘Canaan’ was a corruption of the text….May we
not suppose…that the copyist by mistake wrote only ‘Canaan’ instead of
Ham the father of Canaan,…? By this reading ALL the three sons of Noah
are included in the prophecy….his whole RACE was devoted to
servitude….”(9)

This point would be pounced upon in the next century by pro-slavery
writers. For example, Josiah Priest (1788-1851), in 1843, wrote:

“But lest the reader should become perplexed, respecting the application
of this anathema, on account of the text above referred to, being in
English, ‘cursed be Canaan,’ instead of ‘cursed Ham,’ AS IT SHOULD have
been translated, we state that the Arabic copy of the Book of Genesis,
which is a language of equal authority with the Hebrew…reads ‘cursed Ham
the father of Canaan…’ In THIS sense it has ever been understood by all
commentators, in every age, on the sacred writings.”(10)

Joseph C. Addington also cited the Arabic version to defend slavery. Thus,
the A.V. was CHANGED (or ignored) in order to defend slavery!:

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou
be found a liar.

And God did reprove us America. Beware of using the Bible (or changing it)
in an attempt to justify sin (e.g. covetousness, laziness or partiality).
It will fall upon us and grind us to powder.

DIFFERENT RACES ORIGINATE BY MIRACLE IN GENESIS 11

The variations in color, etc. between the races were probably instituted
by miracle at the same moment the TONGUES were confounded at the Tower of
Babel (Genesis 11):

Genesis 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face
of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

The names of Noah’s sons were prophetic. “Canaan,” meaning “trader” or
“merchant” was a prophecy of the commerce of this people. “Japheth,”
meaning “enlargement” was a prophecy of Persia, Greece and Rome’s future
world dominion. And “Ham,” meaning “black,” would likewise describe the
future destination and racial markings of most of his descendants. Many
names provided in Scripture are prophetic of the future. This view of the
origin of the races seems much more credible than assuming that Noah’s
sons were all originally different (or that they woke up one morning after
the flood and were changed).

CONCLUSION

History is very different from how it is often portrayed today! It was the
King James Bible that had to be changed to justify slavery. Therefore, the
KJV and those who still believe it and love it today should not be
unfairly identified with early slave-traders and masters. Christianity
rebuked the infidel scientists (who argued that blacks were not human).
And Baptists were the chief defenders and promoters of religious liberty.
And almost all of them, before 1830, rebuked slavery as a moral evil. And
even after this date (although many Baptists in the South were indeed
misguided), they repeatedly showed themselves the friend of the oppressed
Negro. I will therefore end this final part with the following letter from
a Baptist preacher in Georgia before the Civil War (1857):

“We, Baptists of the South, have no hesitation in avowing our belief that
God ‘hath made of one blood all nation.’ We maintain, whether against
‘politicians or infidels, philosophers or fanatics,’ that the Negro is a
man. Because we believe this, we preach the Gospel to the Negro at home;
we send the missionary to Africa to preach to him there. We witness the
effect of a preached Gospel in the conversion of the Negro; and when
converted, the Negro is as gladly welcomed into our churches as a brother,
as if he were of pure Anglo-Saxon blood. Not more than a mile from where I
now write, stands an humble building erected for the worship of God. Among
the people who worship there, more than a hundred Negroes were baptized
last year. The church now numbers two hundred and eighty-five members, of
whom two-hundred and twenty eight are colored. By invitation of the
pastor, I preached there Sunday before last. Two-thirds of the
congregation were Negroes, and, as I proclaimed the truth, ‘Ye are bought
with a price,’ their streaming eyes witnessed that there as a common tie
of brotherhood felt and recognized between the preacher and the people,
without regard to color. Not many months ago it was my privilege, as
pastor of a Baptist church, to preside in conference, when two women
presented themselves as candidates for admission. They took seats on the
same bench. One was a lady of wealth, intelligence, and high social
position; the other a Negro servant. They related their experiences. No
difference could be perceived in the cordiality of the vote by which they
were received. The next morning I baptized them both in the same running
stream. We then repaired to the church. I the beginning of the service, in
the presence of an unusually large congregation, the newly baptized took a
stand together in front of the pulpit, and were addressed by the pastor in
the same words of warning, exhortation, encouragement, and confidence.
Then, while we sang a hymn, the members of the church, white and colored,
bond and free, came forward and gave the right hand of fellowship to their
new sisters…”(11)

On the other hand, obedient, fundamental Baptists (and other Christians)
WILL NOT accept unrepentant homosexuals in our churches, since sodomy is a
sin, not a race of people! We will love homosexuals by telling them the
truth and calling them to believe the Gospel and repent of their sins.
Yet, it appears that the majority will not repent, but will continue their
march to Hell under the banner of “equal rights.”

============
NOTES
============
1. J. A. Seiss, “The Threatened Ruin,” A Discourse delivered on the
occasion of the National Fast, 1861.
2. Torrey, “Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.”
3. “Mede’s Works,” Discourses 49, 50; 1672.
4. “Mede’s Works,” Discourse 49; 1672.
5. Thomas Newton, “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Vol. 1, London, 1759.
6. Jonathan Edwards, “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade, and
of the Slaving of the Africans, Sept. 15, 1791.
7. Jonathan Edwards, “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade, and
of the Slaving of the Africans, Sept. 15, 1791.
8. “Mede’s Works,” Discourse 50; 1672.
9. Thomas Newton, “Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Vol. 1, London, 1759.
10. Josiah Priest, “Slavery as it Relates to the Negro…”, 1843.
11. Addressed to the “New York Examiner”; quoted in John Dixon Long,
“Pictures of Slavery in Church and State,” 1859.