Volume I Part 2 (1/2)
6, that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. Canaan's name is mentioned last among the sons of Ham, because the whole account of Ham's family was to be combined with the detailed enumeration of Canaan's descendants, who stood in so important a relation to Israel. The boundary line as regards Shem is formed, quite naturally, by that branch of Ham's family which stood in so important a relation to the main branch of the family of Shem. But, as little reliance can be placed upon the theological grounds of that conjecture; for the question at issue is not the withdrawal of outward advantages. Canaan is _cursed_, and it is just the sting of his servitude that it is the consequence of the curse. It would indeed sadly affect the biblical doctrine of recompense, if cursing and blessing were dependent upon such external reasons as, in the case before us, upon the circ.u.mstance that Canaan was so unfortunate as to be the youngest son.
The right answer to the question is without doubt this:--Ham is punished in his son, just as he himself had sinned against his father.
He is punished in _this_ son, because he followed most decidedly the example of his father's impiety and wickedness. To this view we are led by the whole doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning the visitation of the guilt of the fathers upon the children. (Compare the author's ”_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_,” vol. ii. p.
373.) [Pg 35] To this view we are also led by the pa.s.sage in Gen. xv.
16: ”But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” According to this pa.s.sage, the curse on Canaan can be realized upon him, only when his own iniquity has been fully matured. This his iniquity is presupposed by his curse. If he were to be punished on account of the guilt of the father,--a guilt in which he had no share,--then indeed no delay would have been necessary. To this view we are farther led by what is reported in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, in the development of the sinful germ inherent in the race, had outrun all others, and were, therefore, before all others, overtaken by punishment. (To this view we are further led by what is reported in Genesis concerning the moral depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah, which, in the development of the sinful germ inherent in the race, had outrun all others, and were therefore, before all others, overtaken by punishment) To this view we are led, _further_, by Lev.
xviii. and the parallel pa.s.sages, where the Canaanites appear as a nation of abominations which the land spues out; and, _finally_, by what ancient heathen writers report regarding the deep corruption of the Phnicians and Carthaginians.
The remainder of Ham's posterity are pa.s.sed over in silence; it is only in the sequel that we expect information regarding them. But the foreboding arises, that their deliverance will be more difficult of accomplishment than that of j.a.pheth, although the circ.u.mstance that Canaan is singled out from among them affords us decided hope for the rest.
But not even the exclusion of Ham is to be considered as an unavoidable fate resting upon him. Heathenism alone knows such a curse. The subjective conditions of the curse imply the possibility of becoming free from it. To this, there is an express testimony in the circ.u.mstance, that the promise to the Patriarchs is not limited. David received the remnant of the Canaanitish Jebusites into the congregation of the Lord. (Compare remarks on Zech. ix. 7.) And, in the Gospels, the Canaanitish woman appears as a representative of her nation, and as a proof the possibility, granted to them, of breaking through the fetters of the curse. (Compare also the remarkable pa.s.sage, Ezek. xvi. 46.)
[Pg 36]
”The curse is contrasted with the blessing p.r.o.nounced on Shem and j.a.pheth, and the second member of ver. 25 is, in vers. 26, 27, used as a repet.i.tion in reference to each of the two brethren, who were, in it, viewed together.”--(_Tuch._)
Ver. 26. ”_And he said: Blessed be Jehovah, the G.o.d of Shem; and Canaan shall be a servant to them._”--The Patriarch Noah,--a just man, and one who walked before G.o.d (Gen. vi. 9),--a man raised on high, as David says of himself in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1,--a man whose utterances are not mere individual wishes, but, at the same time, prophecies,--sees such rich blessings in store for his son, that, instead of announcing them to him, he immediately breaks out into the praise of G.o.d, who is the Author of them, and from whom the piety of Shem,[3] the foundation of this salvation, was derived, just as Moses, in Deut. x.x.x. 20, instead of blessing Gad, blesses him by whom Gad is enlarged. The manner in which G.o.d is here spoken of indicates, _indirectly_, what that is in which the blessing consists. _First_,--G.o.d is not called by the name _Elohim_ (which is expressive of merely the most general outlines of His nature), but by the name _Jehovah_, which has reference to His manifested personality, to His revelations, and to His inst.i.tutions for salvation.[4] _Secondly_,--Jehovah is called the G.o.d of Shem,--the first pa.s.sage of Holy Scripture in which G.o.d is called the G.o.d of some person. Both these circ.u.mstances indicate that G.o.d is to enter into an altogether peculiar relation to the descendants of Shem; that He will reveal Himself to them; establish His kingdom among them, and make them partakers of both His earthly and His heavenly blessings. Thus _Luther_ says: ”This is indeed perceptible and clear, that he thus binds closely together G.o.d and his son Shem, and, as it were, commits the one to the other. In this, he indeed indicates the mystery of which Paul treats in Rom. xi. 11 sq., and Christ, in John iv. 22, that salvation cometh from the Jews, but that, nevertheless, the heathen shall become partakers of it. For [Pg 37] although Shem alone be the real root and trunk, yet into this tree the Gentiles are, as a strange branch, graffed, and enjoy the fatness and sap which are in the elect tree. This light Noah, through the Holy Spirit, sees, and although he speaks dark words, he yet prophesies very plainly, that the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be planted in the world, and shall grow up among the race of Shem, and not among that of j.a.pheth.” As yet Shem and j.a.pheth were on an equal footing. In the preceding part of the narrative, nothing had been communicated by which G.o.d had, in His relation to Shem, given up His nature as Elohim, and had become his G.o.d. It is only by antic.i.p.ation, then, that G.o.d can, in His relation to Shem, be designated as Jehovah, and as the G.o.d of Shem. The thought can, when fully brought out, be this alone: ”Blessed be G.o.d, who will, in future, reveal Himself as Jehovah, and as the G.o.d of Shem.”
If it be overlooked that, in this appellation of G.o.d, there is implied the indirect designation of the blessings which are to be conferred on Shem (just as in Gen. xxiv. 27 the words, ”Blessed be Jehovah, the G.o.d of my master Abraham,” imply the thought: because He has manifested Himself as Jehovah, and as the G.o.d of my master; which thought is then further carried out in the subsequent words: ”And who hath not left dest.i.tute my master of His mercy and His truth;”--and just as it is also in the utterance of Zacharias in Luke i. 68, where the words, ”Blessed be the Lord [??????], the G.o.d of Israel,” imply the thought: because He has manifested Himself as the Lord [in the New Testament, ?????? is used where the Old has Jehovah], the G.o.d of Israel),--if this be overlooked, we obtain only a weak and inadequate thought, very unsuitable to the context, the purport of which evidently is to celebrate Shem, and to mark him out as worthy of his name. So it is according to _Hofmann_, who, in the words, ”Blessed--Shem,” finds only an expression of grat.i.tude for the gift of this good son, and who limits the announcement of blessings to the single one--that Canaan shall be Shem's servant. Against this feeble interpretation we must adduce these considerations also: that nowhere does the gift of the good son form, even indirectly, the subject in question;--that thus we should lose the opposition of the curse and the blessing (which requires that, under [Pg 38] the ”Blessed be Jehovah,” we should have concealed the ”Blessed be Shem”), just as we should, the contrast between Jehovah here and Elohim in the following verse;--and, lastly, that what, in the following verse, is said of j.a.pheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, would thus be deprived of its necessary foundation.
It is said: ”Canaan shall be a servant to _them_.” The suffix ???????, which cannot be used for the singular, any more than can the suffix ?????, for which it is only the fuller poetical form (the instances of a different use, adduced by _Ewald_, -- 247, d., can easily be explained in accordance with the rule), indicates that the announcement has no reference to the personal relation of Shem and Ham, but that they come into view solely as the heads of families.
Ver. 27. ”_May G.o.d enlarge j.a.pheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be a servant to them._”--These words, in the first instance, contain the blessing p.r.o.nounced upon j.a.pheth; but they ent.i.tle us to infer from them, at the same time, a glorious blessing destined for Shem, which is the source of blessing to j.a.pheth also.
They thus complete the promise of the preceding verse, which directly refers to Shem.
The first clause of this verse has received a great variety of interpretations. The word ???????, which refers to, and is explanatory of, the name ????? (_i.e._ j.a.pheth), is the future apoc. _Hiphil_ of ??????. The _Piel_ of this verb has in Hebrew commonly the signification: ”to persuade, or prevail upon any one to do anything.” Hence many interpreters translate with _Calvin_: ”May G.o.d allure j.a.pheth that he may dwell in the tents of Shem.” _Luther_ also, in his Commentary, thus explains it: ”G.o.d will kindly speak to j.a.pheth;” while, in his translation, he has: ”May G.o.d enlarge j.a.pheth.”--But to this interpretation it has been rightly objected, that the verb ??? is found only in Piel, not in Hiphil, with the signification ”to persuade;”
that, commonly, it signifies ”to persuade” only in a bad sense; and that, in this sense, it is never construed with ?, but always with the accusative.--All interpreters now agree that (in conformity with the LXX. [p?at??a? ? Te?? t? ??fe?], the _Vulgate_ [_dilatet Deus j.a.phet_], and _Onkelos_) ??????? must be derived from ??? in its primary signification, ”to be wide, large,” in which it is found in Prov. xx.
19 (where ????? [Pg 39] is accusative denoting the place), and which signification is the common one in Aramaic. But they then again disagree, inasmuch as some think of a local extension: G.o.d shall give to j.a.pheth a numerous posterity, which shall take possession of extended territories; while others find here expressed the idea of general prosperity: G.o.d shall prosper j.a.pheth, shall bring him into a free and unstraitened position.
Both of these views partake of alike mistake from regarding the words _per se_, and as disconnected from the following announcement of j.a.pheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem. It must also be objected to them, that in the case of Shem, only one feature of the blessing is pointed out, viz., that G.o.d will be to him Jehovah, _his_ G.o.d; and so, likewise, only one feature of the curse in the case of Ham. When those words are isolated, separated from what follows, and understood of extension, this difficulty arises, that Ham enjoys this extension in common with j.a.pheth, as is shown by a glance at Gen. x. If, on the other hand, we understand them as expressive of prosperity (according to _Hofmann_: ”general prosperity in the affairs of outward life”), this explanation is dest.i.tute of a sufficient foundation, and there is nothing reported in the sequel regarding the fulfilment of such a promise. To this we must further add, that the verb ??? is, on account of its immediate nearness to the proper name, too little expressive, and that, hence, we must expect to find its meaning more fully brought out in what follows.
But if it be acknowledged that the extension appears here as a blessing, in so far only as it leads to the dwelling in the tents of Shem, mentioned in the subsequent clause of the verse, and that the blessing can consist in nothing else, there is then no essential difference betwixt the two interpretations. But we decide in favour of the _latter_ view, because the corresponding verb ?????, ”to make wide, to enlarge,” when construed with ?, is always used in the signification: ”to bring into a free, unstraitened, easy, happy position.” (See, _e.g._, Gen. xxvi. 22; Ps. iv. 2; Prov. xviii. 16; 2 Sam. xxii. 20.) Even when followed by an accusative, the verb is found with this signification in Deut. x.x.xiii. 20: ”Blessed be He that enlargeth Gad.” (In this pa.s.sage, too, the word has been understood as denoting extension; and Deut. xii. 20, xix. 8, have been appealed to in support of the opinion; but this appeal is inadmissible, because [Pg 40] extension of the borders is the thing which is there spoken of. The allusion to the signification of the name _Gad_ = good luck [Gen. x.x.x.
11: ”And Leah said, For good luck;[5] and she called his name Gad”], is favourable to our view, as well as the circ.u.mstance, that in this case the subsequent words are only an expansion of the general thought, and more closely determine the happiness. Jehovah, who enlarges Gad, according to the words which follow, ”He dwelleth like a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head,” is contrasted with the enemies who wish to drive him into a strait. If room be made for him, he becomes happy, as it were, by enlargement.) To understand ??????? of prosperity and happiness, is countenanced also by the consideration that, in such circ.u.mstances, the name j.a.pheth appears much more appropriate in the mouth of Noah, by whom it was uttered at a time when extension could be but little thought of, and that it corresponds much better with the name Shem.
Elohim is to enlarge j.a.pheth. Elohim here stands in strict contrast with Jehovah, the G.o.d of Shem. It is only by dwelling in the tents of Shem, that j.a.pheth pa.s.ses over into the territory of Jehovah,--up to that time, he belongs to the territory of Elohim. But Elohim leads him to Jehovah. It is a contrast in all respects similar to that which we have in Gen. xiv., where, in verse 19, Melchizedek speaks of ”the most high G.o.d,” whose priest he is, according to verse 20; while Abraham, on the contrary, speaks, in verse 22, of ”Jehovah the most high G.o.d.”
There is a difference of opinion regarding the determination of the subject in the second clause of the verse: ”and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” According to a very ancient interpretation, Elohim is to be supplied as such; from which the following sense would be obtained: ”G.o.d shall indeed enlarge and prosper j.a.pheth, but He shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” [Pg 41] The inferior blessing of j.a.pheth would thus be contrasted with the superior one of Shem, among whose posterity G.o.d should, by His gracious presence, glorify Himself,--first in the tabernacle, then in the temple, and lastly, should, in the highest sense, dwell by the incarnation of His Son. Thus _Onkelos_: ”G.o.d shall extend j.a.pheth, and His Shechinah shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” The ancient book _Bres.h.i.+th Rabba_ remarks on this pa.s.sage: ”The Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem.” (See _Schottgen_, _de Messia_, p. 441.) _Theodoret_ also (Interrog. 58 in Genesin) advances this explanation, and ably brings out this sense. It has of late been again defended by _Hofmann_ and _Baumgarten_. But against this view there are decisive arguments, which show that j.a.pheth alone can be the subject. To mention only a few:--It cannot be doubted that it is on purpose that Noah, when speaking of Shem, has chosen the name Jehovah, and that, as soon as he comes to j.a.pheth, he makes use of the name Elohim. We cannot, therefore, suppose that here, where, according to this interpretation, he would just touch upon the essential point in the peculiar relation of Jehovah to the descendants of Shem--the Israelites, he should have made use of the general name of Elohim, as in the case of j.a.pheth. The subject--Jehovah--could not in this case have been omitted before ????. _Further_,--By such an interpretation we are involved in inextricable difficulties as regards the last clause of the verse. The words, ”And Canaan shall be a servant to them,” can neither be referred to Shem alone--for, in that case, they would be an useless repet.i.tion, as in ver. 25 Canaan had been doomed to be a servant to _his brethren_--nor can they be referred to Shem and j.a.pheth at the same time; the a.n.a.logy of the ??? in the preceding verse, where the plural referred to the plurality represented by the one Shem, forbids this. If, then, the last clause can refer to j.a.pheth only, the clause in which the dwelling in the tents of Shem is spoken of, must likewise be referred to j.a.pheth. To these arguments we may _further_ add, that there is something altogether strange in the expression: ”G.o.d shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” There is, in Holy Scripture, frequent mention of G.o.d's dwelling in His tabernacle, on His holy hill, in Zion, in the midst of the children of Israel. Believers also are said to dwell in the tabernacle or temple of G.o.d; but nowhere is [Pg 42] G.o.d spoken of as dwelling in the tents of Israel. _Further_,--If we refer the second clause to Shem, the first, in its detached position, would be too general, too indefinite, and too loose to admit of the blessing of j.a.pheth being concluded with it. We must not, moreover, lose sight of the consideration, that when we refer the second clause also to j.a.pheth, there springs up a beautiful connection between the relation of Shem and j.a.pheth to each other in the present, and during their future progress. As the reaction against the corruption of Ham had originated with Shem, and j.a.pheth had only joined him in it; so in future also, the real home of piety and salvation will be with Shem, to whom j.a.pheth, in the felt need of salvation, shall come near.
_Finally_,--The a.n.a.logy of the promise made to the Patriarch, according to which all the nations of the earth shall be blessed by the seed of Abraham, is in favour of our referring the second clause to j.a.pheth.
And if the Lord, alluding to our pa.s.sage, says, in Luke xvi. 9, ”Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations” (s???? = ???), He expresses the view which we are now defending. For, in that pa.s.sage, it is not G.o.d who receives, but man: they who, by their prayers, are more advanced, come to the help of those who have made less progress; those who have already attained to the enjoyment of salvation, make them partakers who stand in need of salvation.
Of those who correctly consider j.a.pheth to be the subject, several (_J.
D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _k.n.o.bel_) give the translation: ”and he shall dwell in renowned habitations.” But it is quite evident that this sense is admissible only as a secondary one: as such, we must indeed admit it in a context in which the appellative signification of the proper names is never lost sight of. That ?? is here, however, primarily a proper name, is shown by the preceding verse.
The translation, ”j.a.pheth shall dwell in the tents of Shem,” is, then, the correct one. But now the question is,--How are these words to be understood? According to the views of many interpreters, it is intimated by j.a.pheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, that the true religion would be preserved among the posterity of Shem, and would pa.s.s over from them to the descendants of j.a.pheth, who should be received into the community [Pg 43] of the wors.h.i.+ppers of the true G.o.d. So _Jonathan_ explained its meaning: ”The Lord shall make glorious the end of j.a.pheth; his sons shall be proselytes, and shall dwell in the schools of Shem.” So also _Jerome_: ”Since it is said, And he shall dwell in the tents of _Shem_, this is a prophecy concerning us, who, after the rejection of Israel, enjoy the instruction and knowledge of the Scriptures.” _Augustine_ also (_c. Faustum_ xii. 24) understands by the tents of Shem, ”the churches which the apostles, the sons of the prophets, have built up.”
But although this explanation be, in the main, correct, it cannot, per se, satisfy us. It must be reconciled with that other explanation given by _Bochart_ (_Phaleg._ iii. 1 c. 147 sqq.), _Calmet_, _Clericus_, and others, according to which the pa.s.sage is to be understood literally, as foretelling that the posterity of j.a.pheth should, at some future time, gain possession of the country belonging to the descendants of Shem, and should reduce them to subjection.
The phrase, ”and they dwelt in their tents,” is, in 1 Chron. v. 10, used to express the relation of conquerors and conquered. There is no parallel pa.s.sage which could indubitably prove that ”dwelling in the tents of some one” could ever, by itself, denote spiritual communion with him. If Shem had come to j.a.pheth with the announcement of salvation only, it is not likely that a dwelling of j.a.pheth in the tents of Shem would have been spoken of. Even the last clause of the verse--”and Canaan shall be a servant to them”--when compared with the preceding verse, according to which Canaan is, in the first place, to be Shem's servant only, supposes that j.a.pheth will step beyond his borders, and will invade the territory naturally belonging to Shem. If j.a.pheth a.s.sume the dominion of Shem over Canaan, he must then dwell in the tents of Shem in a sense different from the merely spiritual one.