EXPOSITION
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, who are here again mentioned as the heads of the nations into which the family of man developed, the writer having described the important modifications made upon the law of nature and the covenant of grace, and being now about to proceed with the onward course of human history. The present section, extending to Genesis 9:27, is usually assigned to the Jehovistic author (Tuch,Bleek, Kalisch, Colenso, Kuenen), though by Davidson it is ascribed to a so-called redactor, with the exception of the present clause, which is recognized as the Jehovist's contribution to the story. The ground of this apportionment is the introduction of the name Jehovah in Genesis 9:26 (q.v.), and certain traces throughout the paragraph of the style of writing supposed to be peculiar to the supplementer. And Ham is the father of Canaan. Kena'an, the depressed or low one; either the Lowlander or inhabitant of a tow coast country, as opposed to the loftier regions (Aram); from kana , to be low, depressed, in situation, as of land (Gesenius); or more probably the servile one in spirit (Furst, Murphy, Keil, Lange). The reason for the insertion of this notice here, and of the similar one in Genesis 9:22, was obviously to draw attention to the circumstance, not "that the origin of Israel's ascendancy and of Canaan's degradation dates so far back as the family of the second founder of the human race," as if the writer's standpoint were long subsequent to the conquest (Kalisch), but that, "as Israel was now going to possess the land of Canaan, they might know that now was the time when the curse of Canaan and his posterity should take place" (Wilier).
These are the three sons of Noah; and of them was the whole earth—i.e. the earth's population (cf. Genesis 11:1; Genesis 19:31)—overspread. More correctly, dispersed themselves abroad. Διεοπαìρησαν ἐπιÌ πᾶσαν τηÌν γῆν (LXX.): disseminatum est omne genus hominum (Vulgate).
And Noah began to be an husbandman. Literally, a man of the ground. Vir terroe (Vulgate); ἀìνθρωπος γεωργοÌς γῆς (LXX.); Chald; נְּבַר פָלַח בְּאַרְעָא = vir colens terram; agriculturae dediturus. Cf. Joshua 5:4, "a man of war;" 2 Samuel 16:7, "a man of blood;" Genesis 46:32, "a man of cattle;" Exodus 4:10, "a man of words." And he planted a vineyard. So Murphy, Wordsworth, Kalisch. Keil, Delitzsch, and Lange regard ish ha' Adamah, with the art; as in apposition to Noah, and read, "And Noah, the husbandman, began and planted a vineyard," i.e. caepit plantare. Neither interpretation presupposes that husbandry and vine cultivation were now practiced for the first time. That Armenia is a wine-growing country is testified by Xenophon ('Anab.,' 4.4, 9). That the vine was abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident from representations on the monuments, as well as from Scriptural allusions. The Egyptians say that Osiris, the Greeks that Dionysus, the Romans that Saturn, first taught men the cultivation of the tree and the use of its fruit.
And he drank of the wine. יַיִן; "perhaps so called from bubbling up and fermenting;" connected with יָוַן (Gesenius). Though the first mention of wine in Scripture, it is scarcely probable that the natural process of fermentation for so many centuries escaped the notice of the enterprising Cainites, or even of the Sethites; that, "though grapes had been in use before this, wine had not been extracted from them" (Murphy); or that Noah was unacquainted with the nature and effects of this intoxicating liquor (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Keil, Lunge). The article before יַיִן indicates that the patriarch was "familiar with the use and treatment" of the grape (Kalisch); and Moses does not say this was the first occasion on which the patriarch tasted the fermented liquor (Calvin, Wordsworth). And was drunken. The verb שָׁכַר (whence shechar, strong drink, Numbers 28:7), to drink to the full, very often signifies to make oneself drunken, or simply to be intoxicated as the result of drinking; and that which the Holy Spirit here reprobates is not the partaking of the fruit of the vine, but the drinking so as to be intoxicated thereby. Since the sin of Noah cannot be ascribed to ignorance, it is perhaps right, as well as charitable, to attribute it to ago and inadvertence. Six hundred years old at the time of the Flood, he must have been considerably beyond this when Ham saw him overtaken in his fault, since Canaan was Ham's fourth son (Genesis 10:6), and the first was not born till after the exit from the ark (Genesis 8:18). But from whatever cause induced, the drunkenness of Noah was not entirely guiltless; it was sinful in itself, and led to further shame. And he was uncovered. Literally, he uncovered himself. Hithpael of גָּלַה, to make naked, which more correctly indicates the personal guilt of the patriarch than the A.V; or the LXX; ἐγυμνωìθη. That intoxication tends to sensuality cf. the cases of Lot (Genesis 19:33), Ahasuerus (Esther 1:10, Esther 1:11), Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-27). Within his tent. Ἐν τῷ οἰìκῷ αὐτοῦ (LXX.).
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness. Pudenda, from a root (עָרָה) signifying to make naked, from a kindred root to which (עָרם) comes the term expressive of the nakedness of Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:7). The sin of Ham—not a trifling and unintentional transgression" (Von Bohlen)—obviously lay not in seeing what perhaps he may have come upon unexpectedly, but
(1) in wickedly rejoicing in what he saw, which, considering who he was that was overcome with wine,—"the minister of salvation to men, and the chief restorer of the world,"—the relation in which he stood to Ham,—that of father,—the advanced age to which he had now come, and the comparatively mature years of Ham himself, who was "already more than a hundred years old," should have filled him with sincere sorrow; "sed nunquam vino victum pattern filius risisset, nisi prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet" (Luther); and
(2) in reporting it, doubtless with a malicious purpose, to his brethren. And told his two brethren without. Possibly inviting them to come and look upon their father's shame.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment. Literally, the robe, i.e. which was at hand (Keil, Lange); the simlah, which was an outer cloak (Deuteronomy 10:18; 1 Samuel 21:10; Isaiah 3:6, Isaiah 3:7), in which, at night, persons wrapped themselves (Deuteronomy 22:17). Sometimes the letters are transposed, and the word becomes salmah (cf. Exodus 22:8; Micah 2:8). And laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not the nakedness of their father; thereby evincing "the regard they paid to their father's honor and their own modesty (Calvin).
And Noah awoke from his wine. I.e. the effects of his wine (cf. 1 Samuel 1:14; 1 Samuel 25:37); ἐξεìνηψε (LXX.); "became fully conscious of his condition" (T. Lewis). And knew. By inspiration (Alford); more probably by making inquiries as to the reason of the simlah covering him. What his younger son. Literally, his son, the little one, i.e. the youngest son (Willet, Murphy, Wordsworth, T. Lewis, Alford, Candlish), or the younger son (Keil, Bush, Karisch); cf. Genesis 5:32. Generally believed to have been Ham, though by many Canaan is understood (Aben Ezra, Theodoret, Procopius, Scaliger, Poole, Jamieson, Inglis, Lewis). Origen mentions a tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of Noah, and told it to his father. Wordsworth, following Chrysostom, believes Canaan may have been an accomplice. 'The Speaker's Commentary' thinks it would solve the difficulty which attaches to the cursing of Canaan.
And he said. Not in personal resentment, since "the fall of Noah is not at all connected with his prophecy, except as serving to bring out the real character of his children, and to reconcile him to the different destinies which he was to announce as awaiting their respective races" (Candlish); but under the impulse of a prophetic spirit (Poole, Keil, Lange, Candlish, Murphy, and expositors generally), which, however, had its historical occasion in the foregoing incident. The structure of the prophecy is perfectly symmetrical, introducing, in three poetical verses,
(1) the curse of Canaan,
(2) the blessing of Shem, and
(3) the enlargement of Japheth, and in all three giving prominence to the doom of servitude pronounced upon the son of Ham.
Cursed. The second curse pronounced upon a human being, the first having been on Cain (Genesis 4:11). Colenso notices that all the curses belong to the Jehovistic writer; but vide Genesis 49:6, Genesis 49:7, which Tuch and Bleek ascribed to the Elohist, though, doubtless in consequence of the "curse," by Davidson and others it is now assigned to the Jehovist. That this curse was not an imprecation, but a prediction of the future subjection of the Canaanites, has been maintained (Theodoret, Venema, Willet), chiefly in consequence of its falling upon Canaan; but
(1) as the contrary "blessing" implies the inheritance of good in virtue of a Divine disposition to that effect, so does "cursing" import subjection to evil by the same Divine power; and
(2) if we eliminate the moral element from the doom of Canaan, which clearly referred to a condition of temporal servitude, there seems no reason why the language of Noah should not be regarded as a solemnly pronounced and Divinely guaranteed infliction; while
(3) as the curse is obviously aimed at the nations and peoples descending from the execrated person, it is not inconsistent to suppose that many individuals amongst those nations and peoples might attain to a high degree of temporal and spiritual prosperity.
Be Canaan.
(1) Not Ham, the father of Canaan (Arabic Version); nor
(2) all the sons of Ham, though concentrated in Canaan (Havernick, Keil, Murphy); but
(3) Canaan alone, though indirectly, through him, Ham also (Calvin, Bush, Kalisch, Lange, et alii).
For the formal omission of Ham many different reasons have been assigned.
(1) Because God had preserved him in the ark (Jewish commentators).
(2) Because if Ham had been mentioned all his other sons would have been implicated (Pererius, Lange).
(3) Because the sin of Ham was comparatively trifling (Bohlen).
For the cursing of Canaan instead of Ham, it has been urged—
(1) That he was Ham's youngest son, as Ham was Noah's (Hoffman and Delitzsch); surely a very insufficient reason for God cursing any one!
(2) That he was the real perpetrator of the crime (Aben Ezra, Procopius, Poole, Jamieson, Lewis, &c.).
(3) That thereby the greatness of Ham's sin was evinced (Calvin).
(4) That Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father's impiety (Ambrose, Mercerus, Keil).
(5) That Noah foresaw that the Canaanites would abundantly deserve this visitation (Calvin, Wordsworth, Murphy, Kalisch, Lange).
We incline to think the truth lies in the last three reasons. A servant of servants. A Hebraism for the superlative degree; cf. "King of kings, "holy of holies, "the song of songs". I.e. "the last even among servants" (Calvin); "a servant reduced to the lowest degree of bondage and degradation" (Bush); "vilissima servituts pressus" (Sol. Glass); "a most base and vile servant" (Ainsworth); "a working servant" (Chaldee); "the lowest of slaves" (Keil); παῖς οἰκἑτης (LXX.), which "conveys the notion of permanent hereditary servitude" (Kalisch). Keil, Hengstenberg, and Wordsworth see an allusion to this condition in the name Canaan (q.v; supra), which, however, Lange doubts. Shall he be to his brethren. A prophecy which was afterwards abundantly fulfilled, the Canaanites in the time of Joshua having been partly exterminated and partly reduced to the lowest form of slavery by the Israelites who belonged to the family of Shem (Joshua 9:23), those that remained being subsequently reduced by Solomon (1 Kings 9:20, 1 Kings 9:21); while the Phenicians, along with the Carthaginians and Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans (Keil).
And he said—not "Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be Shem" (Jamieson), as might have been anticipated (this, equally with the omission of Ham's name, lifts the entire patriarchal utterance out of the region of mere personal feeling), but—Blessed—בָּרוּךְ when applied to God signifies an ascription of praise (cf. Psalms 144:15; Ephesians 1:3); when applied to man, an invocation of good (cf. Genesis 14:19, Genesis 14:20; Psalms 128:1; Hebrews 7:6)—be the Lord God—literally, Jehovah, Elohim of Shem (cf. Genesis 24:27); Jehovah being the proper personal name of God, of whom it is predicated that he is the Elohim of Shem; equivalent to a statement not simply that Shem should enjoy "a rare and transcendent," "Divine or heavenly," blessing (Calvin), or "a most abundant blessing, reaching its highest point in the promised Seed" (Luther); but that Jehovah, the one living and true God, should be his God, and that the knowledge and practice of the true religion should continue among his descendants, with, perhaps, a hint that the promised Seed should spring from his loins (OEeolampadius, Willet, Murphy, Keil, &c.)—of Shem. In the name Shem (name, renown) there may lie an allusion to the spiritual exaltation and advancement of the Semitic nations (vide Genesis 5:32). And Canaan shall be his servant. לָמוֹ= לָהֶס (Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic), i.e. the two brothers (Delitzsch), their descendants (Knobel, Keil), Shem and Jehovah (Bush); or more probably—לוֹ, as a collective singular, i.e. Shem, including his descendants (LXX; αὐτοῦ; Kalisch, Lange, Murphy).
God. Elohim. If Genesis 9:18-1 are Jehovistic (Tuch, Bleek, Colenso, et alii), why Elohim? Is this a proof that the Jehovistic document was revised by the Elohistic author, as the presence of Jehovah in any so-called Elohistic section is regarded as an interpolation by the supplementer? To obviate this inference Davidson assigns Genesis 9:20-1 to his redactor. But the change of name is sufficiently explained when we remember that "Jehovah, as such, never was the God of Japheth's descendants, and that the expression would have been as manifestly improper if applied to him as it is in its proper place applied to Shem". Shall enlarge Japheth. יַפְתְּ לְיֶפֶת; literally, shall enlarge or make room for the one that spreads abroad; or, "may God concede an ample space to Japheth" (Gesenius). "Wide let God make it for Japheth" (Keil). "God give enlargement to Japheth" (Lange). So LXX; Vulgate, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic. The words form a paronomasia, both the verb and the noun being connected with the root פָתָה, to spread abroad; Hiph; to cause to lie open, hence to make room for,—and refer to the widespread diffusion and remarkable prosperity of the Japhetic nations. The familiar interpretation which renders "God will persuade Japheth, the persuadable," i.e. incline his heart by the gospel so that he may dwell in the tents of Shem (Junins, Vatablus, Calvin, Willet, Ainsworth), is discredited by the facts
(1) that the verb never means to persuade, except in a bad sense (cf. 1 Kings 22:20), and
(2) that in this sense it is never followed by לְ, but always by the accusative. The fulfillment of the prophecy is apparent from the circumstance that "praeter Europam (εὐρωìκη—wide, extensive) "maximam Asiae pattern, totum demique novum orbem, veluti immensae maguitudinis auctarium, Japheto posterique ejus in perpetuam possessionem obtigisse" (Fuller, ' Sac. Miscel; lib. 2. c. 4, quoted by Glass); cf. Genesis 10:2-1, in which Japheth is given as the progenitor of fourteen peoples, to which are added the inhabitants of the lands washed by the sea. The expansive power of Japheth "refem not only to the territory and the multitude of the Japhethites, but also to their intellectual and active faculties. The metaphysics of the Hindoos, the philosophy of the Greeks, the military prowess of the Romans, and the modern science and civilization of the world are due to the race of Japheth" (Murphy). And he—not Elohim (Philo; Theodoret, Onkelos, Dathe, Baumgarten, et alii), which
(1) substantially repeats the blessing already given to Shem, and
(2) would introduce an allusion to the superiority of Shem's blessing in what the context requires should be an unrestricted benediction of Japheth; but Japheth (Calvin, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, Keil, Lange, Kaliseh, Murphy, Wordsworth, 'Speaker's Commentary')—shall dwell. יִשְׁכַן, from שָׁכַן, to dwell; used of God inhabiting the heavens (Isaiah 57:15), dwelling in the bush (Deuteronomy 30:16), residing, or causing his name to dwell, in the tabernacle (Deuteronomy 12:11); hence supposed to favor the idea that Elohim is the subject; but it was as Jehovah (not Elohim) that God abode between the cherubim (Exodus 40:34). In the tents of Shem. Not the tents of celebrity (Gesenius, Vater, Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel), but the tents of the Shemitic races, with allusion not to their subjugation by the Japhethites (Clericus, Von Bohlen, Bochart), which would not be in keeping with the former blessing pronounced upon them (Murphy), but to their subsequent contiguity to, and even commingling with, but especially to their participation in the religious privileges of, the Shemites (the Fathers, Targum Jonathan, Hisronymus, Calvin, Keil, Lange, 'Speaker's Commentary,' Murphy, Candlish). The fulfillment of the prophecy is too obvious to call for illustration. And Canaan shall be his servant.
And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. I.e. to the fifty-eighth year of the life of Abram, and was thus in all probability a witness of the building of the tower of Babel, and of the consequent dispersion of mankind. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died. Tuch, Bleek, and Colenso connect these verses with Genesis 9:17, as the proper continuation of the Elohist's work.
HOMILETICS
The future unveiled.
I. A PAGE FROM HUMAN HISTORY. The prominent figure an old man—always an object of interest, as one who has passed through life's vicissitudes, and worthy of peculiar honor, especially if found walking in the paths of righteousness and peace; an old saint who had long been distinguished for the elevation of his piety, who had long maintained his fidelity to God in the midst of evil times, who had just enjoyed a special deliverance at the hand of God, and who up to the period referred to in our text had brought neither stain upon his piety nor cloud upon his name; the second head of the human family, and in a manner also the second head of the Church of God; an old disciple, who probably had seen Seth, the son of Adam, and walked with Enoch, and spoken with Methuselah, and who lived, as the Scripture tells us, to the days of Abram; clearly one of the most distinguished figures that, looking back, one is able to detect upon the canvas of time. Well, in connection with this venerable patriarch we learn—
1. That he engaged in a highly honorable occupation.
(1) It was to his credit that he had an occupation. Being an old man, he might have reasoned that his working days were done, and that the evening of life might as well be spent in leisure and meditation. Having three stalwart sons, he might have deemed it proper to look to them for aid in his declining years. And knowing himself to be an object of Heaven's peculiar care, he might have trusted God would feed him without his working, since he had saved him without his asking. But from all these temptations—to idleness, to dependence, to presumption—Noah was delivered, and preferred; as all good Christians should do, to labor to the last, working while it is called today, to depend upon themselves rather than their friends and neighbors, and to expect God's assistance rather when they try to help themselves than when they leave it all to him. Then,
(2) The calling he engaged in was an honest one. He was a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard (vide Exposition on vine cultivation). God's people should be careful in selecting honest trades and professions for themselves and their children (Romans 12:17). No social status or public estimation, or profitable returns can render that employment honorable which, either in its nature or in the manner of its carrying or, violates the law of God; while that calling has a special glory in itself and a special value in the sight of Heaven which, however humble and unremunerative, respects the rights of men and the rules of God.
2. That he indulged in a perfectly legitimate gratification. "He drank of the wine." There was nothing wrong in Noah eating of the ripe grapes which grew upon his vines, or drinking of their juice when transformed into wine (cf. Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Corinthians 9:7). The sinfulness of making fermented liquors cannot be established so long as fermentation is a natural process for the preservation of the produce of the grape, and Scripture, in one set of passages, speaks of its beneficial influence upon man's physical system (Judges 9:13; Psalms 104:15; Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23), and God himself employs it as a symbol of the highest and choicest blessings, both temporal and spiritual (Genesis 27:28, Genesis 27:37; Proverbs 9:2; Isaiah 25:6; Matthew 26:28, Matthew 26:29), and Christ made it at the marriage feast of Cana (John 2:9, John 2:10). Nor is the drinking of wines and other fermented liquors condemned in Scripture as a violation of the law of God. That there are special seasons when abstinence from this as well as other gratifications of a physical kind is a duty (cf. Le Genesis 10:9; Judges 13:4, Judges 13:14; Ezekiel 44:21; Daniel 1:5, Daniel 1:8, Daniel 1:16; Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:28), and that it is competent to any Christian, for the sake of Iris weaker brethren, or as a means of advancing his own spiritual life, or for the glory of God, to renounce his liberty in respect of drinks, no intelligent person will doubt. But that total abstinence is imperatively required of every one is neither asserted in Scripture nor was it taught by the example of Christ (Matthew 11:19), and to enforce it upon Christian men as a term of communion is to impose on them a yoke of bondage which Christ has not sanctioned, and to supplant Christian liberty by bodily asceticism.
3. That he fell beneath a pitifully sad humiliation.
(1) He drank to the extent of intoxication. Whatever extenuations may be offered for the action of the patriarch, it cannot be regarded in any other light than a sin; Considering the age he had come to, the experience he had passed through, the position which he occupied as the head of the race and the father of the Church, he ought to have been specially upon his guard. While permitting man a moderate indulgence in the fruit of the vine, the word of God especially condemns the sin of drunkenness (cf. Proverbs 23:20; Isaiah 5:11, Isaiah 5:22; Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1Co 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:8).
(2) His immodesty. The veil of modesty in which God designs that every sinful human being should be wrapped should be jealously guarded from infringement by any action either of ourselves or others.
Lessons:—
1. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12). Remember Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Peter.
2. "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18). There is scarcely a sin to which intoxication may not lead; there is no infallible cure for drunkenness but being filled with the Spirit.
3. "Be sure thy sin will find thee out" (Numbers 32:23). "There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid that shall not be known."
II. A REVELATION OF HUMAN CHARACTER. Oil the threshold of the new world, like the Lord Jesus Christ in the opening of the gospel dispensation (Luke 2:35), the patriarch Noah appears to have been set for the fall and rising again of many, and for a sign to be spoken against that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed. All unconsciously to him his vine-planting and wine-drinking become the occasion of unveiling the different characters of his sons in respect of—
1. Filial piety, which Shem and Japheth remarkably displayed, but of which Ham, the youngest son, appears to have been destitute. There was nothing sinful in Ham's having witnessed what should never have been exposed to view, and there is no reason to credit any of the idle rabbinical legends which allege that Ham perpetrated a particular outrage upon his father; but Ham was manifestly wanting in that filial reverence and honor which were due to his aged parent, in that he gazed with delight upon the melancholy spectacle of his father's shame- in singular contrast to the respectful and modest behavior of Shem and Japheth, who "went with their faces backward," so that "they saw not their father's nakedness."
2. Tender charity. In addition to the mocking eye which gloated over the patriarch's infirmity, there was present in the heart of Ham an evil and malicious spirit, which led him to inflict another and a severer indignity upon his father's fame. The faults of even bad men are required by religion to be covered up rather than paraded in public view. Much more the indiscretions, failings, and sins of good men. Most of all the faults of a father. But, alas, instead of sorrowing for his father's overthrow, Ham obviously took pleasure in it; instead of charitably trying to excuse the old man, nay, without even waiting to ascertain whether an explanation of his conduct might be possible, he appears to have put the worst construction on it; instead of doing what he could to hide his father's sin and shame, he rushes forth and makes it known to his brothers. But these brothers, with another spirit, without offering any apology for their father's error, perhaps instinctively perceiving it to be altogether unjustifiable, take the first loose garment they can find, and, with a beautiful modesty as well as a becoming piety, casting it around their shoulders, enter their father's presence with their faces backward, and cover up his prostrate form. Let the incident remind us—
(1) That if nothing can extenuate a father's falling into sin, much more can nothing justify a son for failing in respect towards his father.
(2) That it is a sure sign of depravity in a child when he mocks at a parent's infirmities and publishes a parent's faults.
(3) That filial piety ever seeks to extenuate and to hide rather than to aggravate and blaze abroad a parent's weaknesses and sins.
(4) That children in the same family may be distinguished by widely different dispositions.
(5) That a son may have pious parents and experience many providential mercies for their sakes, and yet be at heart a child of the devil.
(6) That that which makes one son differ from another in the same family is Divine grace; and
(7) that the characters of children, and of men in general, are oftentimes revealed at the most unexpected times, and by the most improbable events.
III. A DISCLOSURE OF HUMAN DESTINY. Awaking from his wine, the patriarch became aware of what had taken place. Discerning in the conduct of his sons an indication of divergence in their characters, recognizing in their different characters a repetition of what had taken place at the commencement of the first era of the world's history, viz; the division of mankind into a holy and a wicked line, foreseeing also, through the help of inspiration, the development of the world's population into three different tribes or races, he foretells, acting in all under the Spirit's guidance, the future destinies that should await them. His utterance takes the form of a prediction, in which he declares—
1. The degradation of Canaan. "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.
(1) So far as Ham was concerned this judgment was severe, as being imposed upon his youngest and probably his best beloved son; appropriate—he for whose sake it had been inflicted having been his father's youngest son; merciful, as falling not on all his race, but only upon one son and his descendants. N.B.—God's judgments upon sinful men are always proportioned in severity to the guilt which brings them, adjusted to the natures of the sins for which they come, and mixed with mercy in the experience of the persons on whom they fall.
(2) So far as Canaan was concerned the doom of servitude was sovereignty imposed. There is no evidence that Canaan was at all connected with the incident that happened in his grandfather's tent. That the penalty of his father's offence was made to fall on him of all his father's sons was in virtue of that high prerogative which belongs to God alone of assigning to men and nations their lots on earth (cf. Psalms 75:7; Isaiah 41:2; Daniel 5:19; Daniel 4:35; Acts 17:26). Richly merited. Whether Canaan had begun by this time to display any of the dispositions of his father cannot certainly be known; but in after years, when the prophecy was nearing its accomplishment, it is well known that the peculiar sins for which the Canaanites were destroyed or subjected to bondage were allied to those which are referred to in the text (vide Le Genesis 18:27). Exactly fulfilled by the subjugation of the land of Canaan under Joshua and David, though here it should be noted that the enslavement of the African Negro, who, though a Hamite, is not a Canaanite, was a daring defiance of those limits within which the supreme Judge had confined the sentence pronounced upon the Hamite race. Mercifully cancelled by the later promise which was given to Abraharh, and is now fulfilled in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ—of a seed-in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed (Genesis 22:18).
2. The exaltation of Shem. "Blessed be Jehovah, the Elohim of Shem," &c; in which description was the promise of a threefold exaltation.
(1) To supremacy in the Church, as being possessed of the knowledge of the true religion, as being enriched with the fullness of blessing that is in Jehovah Elohim, as being the Divinely-appointed medium through which the first promise of the woman's seed was to be fulfilled, and he was to come whose name should be above every name.
(2) To dominion in the world. In virtue of the religious ascendancy conferred upon him, Shem was to be possessed of power to influence other nations for good, and in particular to receive into his service, for education as well as for assistance, the descendants of Canaan.
(3) To renown throughout all time. As much as this perhaps is hinted at in the name Shem; and to this day the glory which encircled the Shemitie nations of antiquity has not faded, but continues to shine down the centuries with undiminished luster.
3. The enlargement of Japheth. "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant."
A promise of—
1. Territorial expansion. While the Shemite tribes should remain in a manner concentrated in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Japhethites should spread themselves abroad westward as the pioneers of civilization.
2. Spiritual enrichment, by being brought ultimately to share in the religious privileges and blessings of the Shemites—a prediction which has been abundantly fulfilled by the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian Church.
3. Civilizing influence. As Canaan was subjected to Shem in order, while he served, to be instructed in the faith of his master, so does he seem to have been placed beneath the sway of Japheth, that Japheth might lead him forth to a participation of the peculiar blessings which he has been commissioned to bestow upon the other nations of the earth.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
The threefold distribution of the human race
—into the Shemitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic families. The fall of Noah was through wine; not, indeed, a forbidden product of the earth, but, like the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, representing a tremendous responsibility.
I. THE FERTILITY OF SIN. It was out of drunkenness that the widespread curse of the Hamitic nations came forth. And the drunkenness is closely connected with other sins—
(1) shameful degradation both of father and son,
(2) alienation of brethren, and
(3) human slavery.
What a picture of the forthcoming results of intemperance and self-indulgence!
II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE BLESSING AND THE CURSE IN THEIR WORKING OUT. Noah's prediction of the blessing on Shem and Japheth and the curse upon Ham may be taken as an outline of the religious history of the world.
1. The Shemitic races are the source of religious light to the rest. "Blessed be the Lord God of Slain." "Jehovah," the Shemitic revelation, is the foundation of all other.
2. The Japhetic races are the great colonizers and populators of the world, overflowing their own boundaries, dwelling in the tents of Shem, both as inquirers after Shemitic light and in friendly co-operation with Shemitic civilization.
3. The Hamitic races are servants of servants unto their brethren, partly by their degradation, but partly also by their achievements. The Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Canaanitish races, although by no means always in a lower political state than the rest of the world, have yet been subdued by Japhetic and Shemitic conquerors, and handed down their wealth and acquirements to the Northern, Western, and Eastern world.
III. THE RENOVATION OF THE EARTH UNDER THE NEW COVENANT. After the Flood Noah lived the half-week of centuries, and thus laid firmly the foundations of a new earth. Yet, prolonged as was that life of him who had "found grace in the eyes of the Lord," it came to an end at last. He died. The one became the three.
1. The blessing handed on. The type of rest and comfort was spread through the redeemed earth. And from henceforth we have to deal not with the small beginnings of the rescued race, but with the vast multitude of human beings.
2. New sphere of trial. Under the light of the new covenant again the new race were placed upon their trial, that again the redeeming mercy of him who willeth not the death of his creatures may be made manifest in the midst of the teeming earth, with its threefold humanity, spreading eastward, westward, northward, and southward.—R.