The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 226

bcon m11ntione,l all his other sons would enjov " a ra ro and transceudcu t," " Di vino have boon implicRterl (Pererius, Lange). (3) or heavenly," blessing (Calvin), or "n most Becanse the sin of HRm was C'omparatively abundant blossing, reaching its highest point trifling (Bohlen). For the cursing of Canaan in the promised Seed" (Luther) ; but that inst.cad of Ham, it has been urged- (1) Jehovah, the one living and truo God1 should That lie was H11.m's youngest son, e.s Ham be bis God, and that tho knowledge and was Noah's (Hoffman and Delitzsch); surely practice of the true religion should continue a very insufficient l'Cll.son for God cursing among his descendants, with, perhaps, a any one ! (2) That he was the real per- hint that the promised Seed should spring petrator of t:he crime (~ben Ezra, Procopius, from his loius (CEcolarnpndius, Willet, Mur- Poole, Janueson, Lewis, &c.). (3) That phy, Keil, &c.)- of Shem. In the no.me thereby tl,e greatness of Ham's sin was Shem (name, renown) there me.y lie an allu- ei-inc.ed (Cnhin). {4) That Canaan was sion to the spiritual exaltation o.nd advance- already walking in the steps of his father's ment of the Semitic nations (videch, v. 32). impiety (Ambrose, Merc.erus, Keil). (5) That Noah foresaw that the Ca.naanites would And Canaan shall be his servant. \07 = abundnntlv desen•e this visitation (Calvin, CIQ~ (Cha.Idec, Syriac, Arabic), i. e. the Wordsworth, Murphy, Kalisch, La.nge). We two brothers (Delitzsch), their descendants incline to think the truth lies in the last (Knobel, Keil), Shem 11nd Jehovah (Blish); three reasons. A servant of servants. A Hebraism for the superlative degree ; cf. or more probably = i,, as n collective sin- gular (cf. Gesenius, § 103, 2), i e. Shem, "1":ing of kings," "holy of holies," "the i;ong of son!!"S" (vide Gesenius, § 119). I. e. including his descendants (LXX., avroii ; "the last e~en among servants" (Calvin) ; Kalisch, Lange, Murphy). "a servant reduced to the lowest degree of Ver. 27.-God. Elohim. If vers. 18-27 bondage and degradation " (Bush) ; " vilis- are J ehovistic (Tuch, Bleck, Colenso, et alii), sima servitute pressus" (Sol Glass); "a why Elohim ¥ Is this a proof the.t the most base and vile servant" (Ainsworth) ; Jehovistic document was revised by _the "a "·orking servant" (Chaldee); "the lowest Elohistic author, as the presence of J ehovil_h of slaves" (Keil); ,raic oidrqc (LX.X.), in any so-called Elohistic section is regarded which " conveys the notion of permanent as an interpolation by the . supplementer f hereditary servitude " (Kalisch). Keil, To obviate this inference Davidson assigns Hengst.cuber", and Wordsworth see an allu- vers; 20 - 27 to his rdactor. But the 0 sion to this condition in the name Canaan change of name is sufficiently explained (q. v., supra), which, however, Lange doubts. when we remember that "Jehovah, as such, She.ll h11 be to his bretbren. A prophecy never was the God of Japheth's descendants, which was afterwards abundantly fulfilled, and that the expression would have been as the Canaanites in the time of Joshua having manifestly improper if applied to him as it been partly exterminated and partly reduced is in its proper place applieu. to Shem" to the lowest form of slavery by the Israel- (Quarry, p. 393). Shall enlarge Japheth. ites who belonged to the family of Shem 1"\~.'.~ J:1!;)~; literally, shall enlarge or make (J ash. ix. 23), those that remained being room jor the one that spreads abi·oall; or, subsequently reduced by Solomon (1 Kings "may God concede an ample space to Jn- ix. 20, 21); while the Phenicia~s, along pheth" (Gesenius). "Wide let God mako with the Carthaginians and Egyptians, who it for J apheth" (Keil). "God give enlarge- all belonged to the family of Canaan, were ment to Japheth" (Lange). _So LXX., Vul- 611Ljected by the Japhetic I'ersians, Mace- gate, Chalu.ee, Synac, Arabic. The words donians, and Romans (Keil). form a paro~omasia, - both t_he verb nnd Ver. 26.-And he said-not "Blessed of the now1 bewg connected with the root Jehovah, my God, be Shem" (Jamieson), as i1Q~, to spread abroad; Hiph., to cause to might Lave been anticipated (this, equally lie open, hence to m~ke ~oom for,-and refer with the omission of Ham's name, lifts the to the widespread d1ffus10~ and :eme.rknbla entire patriarchal utterance out of the region prosperity of the J aphetic nations .. The of mere personal feeling), _but--Blessed- familiar mterpretation which rend~rs •,: ~od ;pi~ when applied to God signifies an will persuade Japheth, the persuad1ble, i. e. nscription or praise (cf. Ps. cxli~- 15 ; ~phes. incline his heart by the gospel so that. he i. :cl); when applied to man, au rnvoca~~?n of may dwell in the tents of Shem (Junius, good (cf. eh. xiv. 19, 20 ; P~. cxx:vm. I; VatauluH, Calvin, Willet, Ainsworth), is dis- Heu. vii. 6)-be the Lord God-hteral)y, credited by the facts (1) that the verb never Jelwvah, Elo!.im of Shem (cf. eh. xnv. means to persuade, except in e. ~ad s~nse (cf. 27); Jehovah being the proper personal 1 Kings x.xii. 20 ), and (2) that 1n this se1;1~e name of God, of whom it is predicated that he is the Elohim of Shem ; equivalent to a it is never followed by?, but always by the atatemeul not simply that Shem should accusative (vide Gesenius, aub. nom.; cf. oll. IX, 18-20.] THE BOOK 0}' GENESI8. 151