As the mission of Christ was rendered necessary by the fall of man, so
the first dark intimation of Him was given immediately after the fall.
It is found in the sentence of punishment which was passed upon the
tempter. Gen. iii. 14, 15. A correct understanding of it, however, can
be obtained only after we have ascertained who the tempter was.
It is, in the first place, unquestionable that a real serpent was
engaged in the temptation; so that the opinion of those who maintain
that the serpent is only a symbolical signification of the evil spirit,
cannot be admitted.[1] There must be unity and uniformity in the
interpretation of a connected passage. But the allegorical
interpretation of the _whole_ is rendered impossible by the following
considerations:--The passage stands in a book of a strictly historical
character; it is connected with what follows, where the history of the
same pair who, in this section appear as actors, is carried forward;
the condition of mankind announced to them in this passage as a
punishment, actually exists; there is the absence of every indication
from which it might be inferred that the author intended to write an
allegory, and not a history; there exist various passages of the New
Testament (_e.g._, 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14; Rom. v. 12), in
which the context of the passage before us is referred to as a real
historical fact;--and there are the embarrassment, ambiguity, and
arbitrariness shown by the allegorical interpreters whenever they
attempt to exhibit the truth intended to be conveyed; whereas
perspicuity is a characteristic essential to an allegory.--The subtlety
of the [Pg 15] serpent, pointed out in chap. iii. 1, is a natural
attribute of that animal; and the comparison, in this respect, of the
serpent with the other beasts, clearly indicates that a real serpent is
spoken of. To such an one the denunciation of the punishment must
necessarily, in the first instance, be referred. The last two reasons
also exclude the opinion that Satan assumed merely the semblance of a
serpent.
The serpent itself cannot, however, have acted independently; it can
only have served as an instrument to the evil spirit. The position
which the serpent would occupy, in the event of our considering it as
the self-acting, independent seducer, would be in direct contradiction
to the position assigned to the animal creation throughout Holy
Scripture--especially in the history of the creation--and would break
down the limits which, according to it, separate man and beast. By
such an assumption we should be transferred from the Israelitish
territory--which is distinguished by the most sharply defined
limitations of the respective spheres of God, angels, men, and
beasts--to the heathenish, were these are all mixed up together, and
where all the distinctions disappear in the confusion. Such a fact
would be altogether isolated and without a parallel in Holy Scripture.
Nor is it legitimate to adduce the argument, that the conditions and
circumstances of the paradisaic period were different from those of
subsequent times. It is indeed true, according to the statements
contained in the Mosaic account itself, that the animal world of that
time was different from that of the present; but whatever, and how
great soever, this difference may have been, it had no reference to the
fundamental relation of the beasts; and hence we cannot, from it,
explain the high intellectual powers with which the serpent appears
endowed, and by the abuse of which it succeeded in seducing men. Man,
as the only being on earth created in the likeness and image of God,
is, in Gen. i., strictly distinguished from all other living beings,
and invested with the dominion over them. Into man alone did God
breathe the breath of life (ii. 7); and, according to ii. 19, 20, man
recognises the great gulf which is fixed betwixt him and the world of
beasts. This gulf would be entirely filled up, the serpent would
altogether step beyond the sphere appointed by the Creator to the world
of beasts, if there were no _background_ in Gen. iii. 1-5. _Further_,
The words [Pg 16] of the serpent are an effect of wickedness: they
raise in man doubts as to the love of God, in order thereby to seduce
him to apostasy, and bring about the execution upon him of the fearful
threatening, "On the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die." The serpent does not stand in the truth; it speaks lies; it
represents to man as the highest good, that which in truth is the
highest evil. Such language cannot proceed spontaneously from a being,
the creation of which falls within the work of the six days during
which the whole animal creation was made. For everything created within
this space of time was _good_, according to the remark constantly
repeated in the history of creation. To this we must add the nature of
the curse itself, in which a higher reference to an invisible author of
the temptation shines clearly through the lower reference to the
visible one; and, further, the remark in iii. 1, "Now the serpent was
more subtle," etc., evidently points to something beyond the natural
subtlety of the serpent, as the result of which the subsequent words
cannot be understood, but behind which we may discover the intimation:
let him who reads, understand.
The view, that the serpent was the sole independent agent in this
transaction, is thus refuted by internal reasons. It is set aside by
the testimony of tradition also. It was an opinion universally
prevalent among the Jews, that Satan himself had been active in the
temptation of the first man. It is found in _Philo_; and in the Book of
Wisdom, ii. 24, it is said, "By the envy of _Satan_, death came into
the world." In the later Jewish writings, _Sammael_, the head of the
evil spirits, is called הנחש הקדמוני "the old serpent," or simply נחש
"serpent," because in the form of a serpent he tempted Eve. (See the
passage in _Eisenmenger's entdecktes Judenthum_ i. S. 822.) In the
sacred books of the Persians also, the agency of Satan in the fall of
our first parents is taught. According to the _Zendavesta_ (ed. by
_Kleuker_, Th. 3, S. 84, 85), the first men, Meshia and Meshianeh, were
created by God in a state of purity and goodness, and destined for
happiness, on condition of humility of heart, obedience to the
requirements of the law, and purity in thoughts, words, and actions.
But they were deceived by Ahriman, "this mischievous one who from the
beginning sought only to deceive, were induced to rebel against God,
and forfeited their happiness by the eating of fruits." According to
the same book (Th. iii. [Pg 17] S. 62), Ahriman in the form of a
serpent springs down from heaven to earth; and another evil spirit is
called (Th. ii. S. 217) the serpent--_Dew._ (Compare _Rhode_, _die
heilige Sage des Zendvolkes_, S. 392.) These facts prove that at the
time when the Persian religion received Jewish elements (compare
_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des Orientes_, S. 373), and hence, soon
after the captivity, the doctrine of Satan's agency in the temptation
of our first parents was prevalent among the Jews.
But of decisive weight upon this point is the evidence furnished by the
New Testament. We must here above all consider the important testimony
supplied by the fact of the history of the first and second Adam being
parallel (Rom. v. 12 sqq.; 1 Cor. xv. 45 sqq.),--a testimony, the
weight and importance of which have, in modern times, been again
pointed out by _Hahn_ in his _Dogmatik_. The necessity of Christ's
temptation by the prince of this world, in order that He, by His firm
resistance, might deprive him of his dominion over mankind, indicates
that Adam was assailed by the same tempter, and, by being overcome,
laid the foundation of that dominion.
Among the express verbal testimonies of the New Testament, we must
first consider the declarations of the Lord Himself; and among these
the passage John viii. 44 requires, above all, to be examined. In that
passage the Lord says: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ, καὶ τὰς
ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν. Ἑκεῖνος ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἦν ἀπ᾽
ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἐν τῆ ἀληθείᾳ οὐχ ἕστηκεν· ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ. Ὅταν
λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ· ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ.
There is, indeed, an element of truth in the opinion, that Satan is in
this passage called the murderer of men from the beginning, with
reference to the murder by Cain--an opinion lately brought forward
again by _Nitzsch_, _Lücke_, and others. This is evident from a
comparison of 1 John iii. 12, 15, and of Rev. xii. 3. (See my
commentary on this passage.) Moreover, the words in ver. 40, "Ye seek
to kill Me," have a more direct parallelism in Cain's murder of his
brother, than in the death which Satan brought upon our first parents;
although it is altogether wrong to maintain, as _Lücke_ does, that
Satan at that time committed only a _spiritual_ murder, which could not
have come under notice. Bodily death also came upon mankind through the
[Pg 18] temptation. (Compare Gen. ii. 17, iii. 19; Wisd. ii. 24; Rom.
v. 12.) But when the reference to Cain's slaying his brother is brought
forward as the sole, or even as the principal one, we must absolutely
reject it. Cain's murder of his brother comes into consideration only
as an effect of the evil principle which was introduced into human
nature by the first temptation; as, indeed, it appears in the book of
Genesis itself as the fruit of the poisonous tree, the planting of
which is detailed in chap. iii. The same murderous spirit which
impelled Satan to bring man under the dominion of death by the lie, "Ye
shall not surely die," was busy in Cain also, and seduced him to slay
his pious brother. The following reasons forbid an exclusive reference
to the deed of Cain:--1. The murdering of man by Satan is brought into
the closest connection with his _lie_. In connection with Cain's deed,
however, there was not even the appearance of falsehood; while, in the
case before us, lies, false and deceitful promises of high blessings to
be attained, and the raising of suspicions against God, were the very
means by which he seduced man, and brought him under the power of sin.
The words of Jesus, when they are understood according to their
simple meaning, carry us back to an event in the primitive times,
in which murder and the spirit of falsehood went hand in hand. 2. The
co-operation of Satan in Cain's deed is not expressly mentioned in
Genesis. That there was any such we can with certainty infer, only if
this event be viewed in close connection with what Satan did against
our first parents,--if, behind the serpent, Satan be concealed.
Whensoever Jesus has to deal with Jews, He does not teach any
mysterious doctrines, but makes an open appeal to the events narrated
in Scripture. 3. The words, "Ye are of your father the devil," point to
the seed of the serpent spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. 4. The words, "From
the beginning," direct to an event which happened at the first
beginnings of mankind, and in which our first parents took a part.
Whatever this may be, the event in question must be the first in which
the devil manifested himself as the murderer of man. Now, as by the
Jews of that time the temptation of the first man, in consequence of
which death entered the world, was attributed to sin--and this appears
not only from what has been already said, but also from a passage in
the _Sohar Chadash_, referred to by _Tholuck_, in which the wicked are
[Pg 19] called "The children of the old serpent which has slain Adam
and all who are descended from him"--it is evident that, by "the
murderer of men from the beginning," Jesus can mean only the first
tempter of men. That the words, "from the beginning," refer to the fall
of the first man, is also clearly shown by the parallel passages 1 John
iii. 8, and Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2. 5. Jesus says: Satan stands not in the
truth, does not move in its element, because there is no truth in him.
This points to a well-known event, in which Satan displayed his lying
nature; and such is found only in the account of man's fall. 6. Jesus
calls Satan not only a liar, but, by way of emphasis, He designates him
as the father of lies. But Satan can be designated thus, only with
reference to a lie of his which is charged against him by Scripture,
and which preceded all lies on earth. Now that is the lie of which we
have an account in Gen. iii. 4, 5. The words, "and the father of it,"
correspond with the words, "from the beginning."
Another declaration of our Lord is found in St Matthew xiii. 38: τὰ δὲ
ζιζάνιά εἰσιν οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ (_i.e._, _mali_, _masculinum_, according
to _Bengel_), compared with ver. 39: ὁ δὲ ἐχθρὸς ὁ σπείρας αὐτά ἐστιν ὁ
διάβολος. The children of the wicked one, or of the devil, who are
spoken of in this passage, are the seed of the serpent who is mentioned
in Gen. iii. 15, and to whom allusion is made in the words ὁ σπείρας
αὐτα also. Less incontrovertible is the passage in St Matthew xxiii. 33,
where the Lord addressed the Pharisees as ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν.
(Compare Matt. xii. 34, iii. 7.) _Olshausen_, in his commentary on
Matt. iii. 7, gives it as his opinion that the serpent designates the
_diabolic nature_. But, according to Matt. xii. 34, the point of
comparison is only the wickedness (πονηροὶ ὄντες), and it is quite
sufficient to refer it to Ps. cxl. 4, where David says of the future
enemies of his dynasty and family foreseen by him, "They have sharpened
their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips"
(compare also Ps. lviii. 5; Deut. xxxii. 33; Isa. lix. 5),--a passage
to which special allusion is made in the words, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ
λαλεῖν, Matt. xii. 34, and in the connection of serpents with vipers,
which would be strange when referred to the history of the fall of the
first man.
Let us now turn from the Lord to His disciples. Just as is done in the
account of the transaction itself, Paul, in 2 Cor. [Pg 20] xi. 3 (ὡς ὁ
ὄφις Εὔαν ἐξηπάτησεν ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτοῦ), places the invisible cause
of the temptation in the background, and speaks of the visible one
only. But that behind the serpent he beholds Satan, appears immediately
from ver. 14 and 15: Καὶ οὐ θαυμαστόν· αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Σατανᾶς
μετασχηματίζεται εἰς ἄγγελον φωτός. Οὐ μέγα οὖν εἰ καὶ οἱ διάκονοι αὐτοῦ
μετασχηματίζονται ὡς διάκονοι δικαιοσύνης, where the μετασχηματίζεται is
explained by _Bengel_: "_Transformat se: Præsens, i.e., solet se
transformare. Fecit id jam in Paradiso._" The Apostle alludes to an
event narrated in Scripture, where Satan shows himself in this
character. But such an occurrence is not found anywhere else than in
Gen. iii. 4, 5, the only passage where Satan represents himself as the
friend and saviour of men. We have here the explanation of the
ἐξηπάτησεν in ver. 3.--In Rom. xvi. 20, the words, Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης
συντρίψει τὸν Σατανᾶν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν, contain an allusion to Gen.
iii. 15, too plain to be mistaken. The Apostle recognises, in the
promise of the victory over the serpent given there, a pledge of the
victory over Satan. The words of Paul to Elymas in Acts xiii. 10, "O
thou child of the devil," likewise contain a distinct reference to that
which, in the history of man's fall, is written concerning the serpent.
In the charge of subtlety, mischief, and enmity to all righteousness
which he brings against him, there is an evident allusion to Genesis.
In 1 John iii. 8, Ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν· ὅτι ἀπ᾽
ἀρχῆς ὁ διάβολος ἁμαρτάνει, allusion is made to a most heinous sin
committed by Satan at the first beginnings of the human race. But of
such a sin there is no account, unless Satan be concealed behind the
serpent.--In Rev. xii. 9 (comp. xx. 2), Satan is called the great
dragon, and the _old serpent_; the last of which designations refers to
the passage now under consideration.
The agency of Satan in the fall of man has been controverted, on the
plea that, had such been in operation, it ought to have been mentioned.
But the absence of any such mention may be explained on the ground that
it is not the intention of the holy writers to give any information
respecting the existence of the devil, but rather to give an account of
his _real_ manifestation, to which, afterwards, the doctrine connected
itself. The judgment of the reader should not, as it were, be [Pg 21]
anticipated. The simple fact is communicated to him, in order that,
from it, he may form his own opinion.
_Further_,--It has been asserted that, in the entire Old Testament, and
until the time of the Babylonian captivity, no trace of an evil spirit
is to be found, and that, hence, it cannot be conceived that his
existence is here presupposed. But this assertion may now be regarded
as obsolete and without foundation. Closely connected with the
affirmation, to which allusion has just been made, is the opinion which
assigns the Book of Job to the time of the captivity, an opinion which
is now almost universally abandoned. This book must necessarily have
been written before the time of the captivity, because Jeremiah refers
to it, both in his Prophecies (_e.g._, Jer. xx. 15 sq., which passage
evidently rests on Job iii.) and in his Lamentations. (Compare, for a
fuller discussion of this subject, _Küper's_ "_Jeremias libror.
Sacrorum interpres atque Vindex_") The reference in Amos iv. 3 to Job
ix. 8, and several allusions occurring in the Prophecies of Isaiah
(_e.g._, chap. xl. 2 and lxi. 7, which refer to the issue of Job's
history, which is here viewed as a prophecy of the future fate of the
Church; the peculiar use of צבא in xl. 2, which alludes to Job vii. 1;
chap. li. 9, which rests on Job xxvi. 13), lead us still farther back.
The assertion of those also who feel themselves compelled to
acknowledge the pre-exilic origin of the book, but who maintain, at the
same time, that the Satan of this book is not the Satan of the later
books of the Old Testament, but rather a good angel who only holds an
odious office, is more and more admitted to be futile; so that we must
indeed wonder how even _Beck_ (_Lehrwissenschaft_ i. S. 249) could be
carried away by it, and could make the attempt to support this
pretended fact by the supposition, that the apostasy of part of the
angels from God, and their kingdom of darkness, are ever advancing and
progressing. The principal evil spirit is, in Zech. iii. 1, introduced
as the adversary of the holy ones of God; and this very name is
sufficient to contradict such a supposition, for the name is
descriptive of the wickedness of the character. He who, under all
circumstances, is an "adversary," must certainly carry the principle of
hatred in his heart. He moves about on the earth for the purpose of
finding materials for his accusations, and grounds on which he may
raise suspicions. It is a characteristic [Pg 22] feature, that he whose
darkness does not comprehend the light, knows of no other piety but
that which has its origin in the hope of reward. It is quite evident
that it is the desire of his heart to destroy Job by sufferings. The
only circumstance which seems to give any countenance to the
supposition is, that he appears in the midst of the angels, before the
throne of God. But this circumstance is deprived of all its
significancy, if the fact be kept in view--which, indeed, is most
evident--that the book is, from beginning to end, of a purely poetical
character. The form of it is easily accounted for by the intention to
impress this most important thought: that Satan stands in absolute
dependence upon God; that, with all his hatred to the children of God,
he can do nothing against them, but must, on the contrary, rather
subserve the accomplishment of the thoughts of God's love regarding
them.--Isaiah likewise points to evil spirits in chap. xiii. 21, xxxiv.
14. (Compare my Comment. on Rev. xviii. 2.)--But even in some passages
of the Pentateuch itself, the doctrine regarding Satan is brought
before us. It is true that it has been erroneously supposed to be
contained in Deut. xxxii. 17 (compare on this opinion, my Comment. on
Ps. cvi. 37); but only bigotry and prejudice can refuse to admit that,
under the _Asael_, to whom, according to Lev. xvi., a goat was sent
into the wilderness, Satan is to be understood. (The arguments in
support of this view will be found in the author's "_Egypt and the
Books of Moses_," p. 168 ff.)[2]
But we must advert to two additional considerations. _First_,--To
every one who is in the least familiar with the territory [Pg 23]
of divine revelation, and who has any conception of the relation in
which the Books of Moses stand to the whole succeeding revelation, it
will, _a priori_, be inconceivable, that a doctrine which afterwards
occupies so prominent a position in the revealed books should not have
already existed, in the germ at least, in the Books of Moses.
_Secondly_,--We should altogether lose the origin and foundation of the
doctrine concerning Satan, if he be removed from, or explained away in,
the history of the fall. That the first indication of this doctrine
cannot by any means be found in the Book of Job, has already been
pointed out by _Hofmann_, who remarks in the _Schriftbeweis_ i. S. 378,
that Satan appears in this book as a well-known being, as much so as
are the sons of God. Nor is Lev. xvi. an appropriate place for
introducing, for the first time, this doctrine into the knowledge of
the people. The doctrinal essence of the symbolical action there
prescribed is this:--that Satan, the enemy of the Congregation of God,
has no power over those who are reconciled to God; that, with their
sins forgiven by God, they may joyfully appear before, and mock and
triumph over, him. The whole ritual must have had in it something
altogether strange for the Congregation of the Lord, if they had not
already known of Satan from some other source. The questions: Who is
Asael? What have we to do with him? must have forced themselves upon
every one's mind. It is not the custom of Scripture to introduce its
doctrines so abruptly, to prescribe any duty which is destitute of the
solid foundation of previous instruction.
If thus we may consider it as proved, (1) that the serpent was an agent
in the temptation, and (2) that it served only as an instrument to
Satan, the real tempter,--then we have also thereby proved that the
curse denounced against the tempter must have a double sense. It must,
in the first place, refer to the instrument; but, in its chief import,
it must bear upon the real tempter, for it was properly he alone who
had done that which merited the punishment and the curse. Let us now,
upon this principle, proceed to the interpretation of our passage.
It is said in ver. 14: "_And Jehovah Elohim said unto the serpent,
Because thou hast done this, thou shalt be cursed above all cattle
and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life._"--If we do not [Pg
24] look beyond the serpent, these words have in them something
incomprehensible, inasmuch as the serpent is destitute of that
responsibility which alone could justify so severe a sentence. There is
no difficulty attached to the idea that the serpent must suffer. It
shares this fate along with all the other irrational earthly creation,
which is made subject to vanity (Rom. viii. 20), and which must
accompany man, for whose sake it was created, through all the stages of
his existence. But the question here at issue is not about mere
suffering, but about well-merited punishment. The serpent is not, like
the whole remaining earth, cursed for the sake of man (Gen. iii. 17),
but it is cursed because "it has done this." Punishment presupposes
being created in the image of God, and, according to chap. i., such
a creation is peculiar only to man. But as soon as we assume the
co-operation of an invisible author of the temptation, by whom the
serpent was animated, everything which is here threatened against the
visible instrument acquires a symbolical meaning. The degradation
inflicted upon the latter,--the announcement of the defeat which it is
to sustain in the warfare with man,--represent in a figure the fate of
the real tempter only. The instrument used by him in the temptation is
at the same time the symbol of the punishment which he is destined to
endure.
Although it be said that the serpent should be "cursed above all
cattle," etc., this does not necessarily imply that the other animals
are also cursed, any more than the words, "subtle above all the
beasts," imply that all other beasts are subtle. It is certainly not
always necessary that the whole existing difference should be pointed
out. The sense is simply: Thou shalt be more cursed than all cattle. In
a similar manner it is said, in the song of Deborah, concerning Jael,
"Blessed above women shall Jael be," Judges v. 24; for this does not
imply that all other women are blessed, but means only that, whether
they be blessed or not, Jael, at all events, is the most blessed.
The _eating of dust_ must not be interpreted literally, as if the
serpent were to feed upon dust; but, since it is to creep on the
ground, it cannot be but that it swallow dust along with its food. Thus
we find in Ps. cii., in "the prayer of the afflicted," ver. 10, "For I
have eaten ashes like bread," used of occasional swallowing of ashes.
As an expression of deepest humiliation, the [Pg 25] licking of dust is
used in Mic. vii. 17, where it is said of the enemies of the Church,
"They shall lick dust like the serpent." In Is. xlix. 23, compared with
Ps. lii. 9, the licking up the dust of the feet is likewise inflicted
upon the humbled enemies. If, undoubtedly, there be, even in these
passages, a slight reference to the one before us, the allusion to it
is still plainer in Is. lxv. 25, where it is said, "And dust shall be
the serpent's meat." Of the denunciation in Gen. iii. 14, 15, the
eating of dust alone shall remain, while the bruising of the heel shall
come to an end. And while all other creatures shall escape from the
doom which has come upon them in consequence of the fall of man, the
serpent--the instrument used in the temptation--shall, agreeably to the
words in the sentence of punishment, "All the days of thy life," remain
condemned to a perpetual abasement, thus prefiguring the fate of the
real tempter, for whom there is no share in the redemption.
The opinion which has been again of late defended by _Hofmann_ and
_Baumgarten_, that the serpent had before the fall the same shape as
after it, only that after the fall it possesses as a punishment what
before the fall was its nature, stands plainly opposed to the context.
Even _a priori_, and in accordance with Satan's usual mode of
proceeding, it is probable that he, who loves to transform himself into
an angel of light, should have chosen an attractive and charming
instrument of temptation. This view loses all that is strange in it, if
only we consider the change of the serpent, not as an isolated thing,
but in connection with the great change which, after the fall of man,
affected the whole nature (comp. Gen. i. 31, according to which the
entire animal creation had, previously to the fall, impressed upon it
the image of man's innocence and peace, and the law of destruction did
not pervade it, Gen. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 20); and if only we keep in
mind that, before the fall, the whole animal world was essentially
different from what it is now, so that we cannot by any means think of
forming to ourselves a distinct Image of the serpent, as _Luther_ and
others have done.
The serpent is thus, by its disgusting form, and by the degradation of
its whole being, doomed to be the visible representative of the kingdom
of darkness, and of its head, to whom it had served as an instrument.
But the words, when applied to the head himself, give expression to the
idea: "extreme contempt, [Pg 26] shame, and abasement shall be thy
lot." Thus _Calmet_ remarks on this passage: "This enemy of mankind
crawls, as it were, on his belly, on account of the shame and disgrace
to which he is reduced." Satan imagined that, by means of the fall of
man, he would enlarge his kingdom and extend his power. But to the eye
of God the matter appeared in a totally different light, because, along
with the fall, He beheld the redemption.
Ver. 15. "_And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou
shalt bruise its heel._" In the two other passages where the word שוף
occurs (Ps. cxxxix. 11 [compare my commentary on that passage] and Job
ix. 17), it undeniably signifies: "to crush," "to bruise." This
signification, therefore, which is confirmed by the Chaldee Paraphrast,
and which Paul also follows in Rom. xvi. 20 (συντρίψει, whilst the LXX.
have τηρήσει), must here also be retained. It is only in appearance
that, in the second passage referred to, the signification "to crush"
seems to be inappropriate; for there, "to crush" is used in the sense
of "to destroy," "to annihilate," just as in Jonah iv. 7, "to strike"
is used of the sting of an insect, because its effect is similar to
that produced by a stroke. The words ראש and עקב are a second
accusative governed by the verb, whereby the place of the action is
more distinctly marked out. That by "head" and "heel"--a _majus_ and a
_minus_--a victory of mankind over the seed of the serpent should be
signified, was seen by _Calvin_, who says, "Meanwhile we see how
graciously the Lord deals even in the punishment of men, inasmuch as He
does not give the serpent power to do more than wound the heel, while
to man is given the power of wounding its head. For the words 'head'
and 'heel' point out only what is superior and what is inferior." That
these words are by no means intended to describe the mutual antipathy
between men and serpents, is rendered evident by the consideration,
that, if such were the intention, no special punishment would be
denounced against the serpent, while, according to the context, such
denunciation is certainly designed by the writer. The words treat of
the punishment of the serpent; it is only in ver. 16 that the sentence
against man is proclaimed. It is true that the bite of a serpent is
dangerous when it is applied even to the heel, for the poison thence
penetrates the whole body; but to this fact in natural history there is
here [Pg 27] no allusion, nor is the _biting_ of the serpent at all the
point here in question. The contrast between head and heel is simply
that which exists between the noble and less noble parts,--those parts
of which the injury is commonly curable or incurable. The objection:
"The serpent creeps, man walks upright; if then an enmity exists
between them, how can it be otherwise than that man wounds its head,
and that it wounds his heel?" entirely overlooks the consideration,
that, according to ver. 14, it is in consequence of the divine curse
that the serpent creeps in the dust. In this degraded condition--a
condition which is not natural, but inflicted as a punishment--it is
implied that the serpent can attack man at his heel only. This plain
connection between ver. 15 and 14 is evidently overlooked by those who
hold the opinion, that this mutual enmity is pernicious equally to man
and serpent. The very circumstance that the serpent is condemned to go
on its belly, and to eat dust, whilst man retains that erect walk in
which the image of God is reflected, paves the way for the announcement
of the victory in ver. 16.
Experience bears ample witness to the truth of the divine sentence,
that there shall, in future, be enmity between the seed of the serpent
and mankind, in so far as this sentence refers to the instrument of the
temptation; for abhorrence of the serpent is natural to man. Thus
_Calvin_ remarks: "It is in consequence of a secret natural instinct
that man abhors them; and as often as the sight of a serpent fills us
with horror, the recollection of our apostasy is renewed."
But, in the fate of the serpent which is here announced, there is an
indication of the doom of the spiritual author of the temptation. It
has been objected that any reference to Satan is inadmissible, because
the "seed of the serpent" here spoken of cannot designate wicked men,
who are "children of the devil;" for these, too, belong to the seed of
the woman, and cannot, therefore, be put in opposition to it. But
against this objection _Storr_, in his treatise, _de Protevangelio_,
remarks: "We easily see that many of the seed of the woman likewise
belong to the seed of the serpent; but they have become unworthy of
that name, since they apostatized to the common enemy of their race."
It is quite true that, by the seed of the woman, her whole progeny is
designated; but they who enter into communion [Pg 28] with the
hereditary enemy of the human race are viewed as having excommunicated
themselves. Compare Gen. xxi. 12, where Isaac alone is declared to be
the true descendant of Abraham, and his other sons are, as false
descendants, excluded. Moreover, not only wicked men, but also the
angels of Satan (Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 7-9), belong to the seed of
the serpent.
The greater number of the earlier Christian interpreters were of
opinion that, by the seed of the woman, the Messiah is directly pointed
at. But to this opinion it may be objected, that it does violence to
the language to understand, by the seed of the woman, any single
individual; and the more so, since we are compelled to understand, by
the seed of the serpent, a plurality of individuals, viz., the
spiritual children of Satan, the heads and members of the kingdom of
darkness. _Further_,--As far as the sentence has reference to the
serpent, the human race alone can be understood by the seed of the
woman; and to this, therefore, the victory over the invisible author of
the temptation must also be adjudged. The reference to the human race
is also indicated by the connection between "her seed" in this
verse, and the words, "Thou shalt bring forth sons," in ver. 16.
_Finally_,--As the person of the Messiah does not yet distinctly appear
even in the promises to the Patriarchs, this passage cannot well be
explained of a personal Messiah; inasmuch as, by such an explanation,
the progressive expansion of the Messianic prophecy in Genesis would be
destroyed.
If, however, by the seed of the woman we understand the entire progeny
of the woman, we obtain the following sense: "It is true that thou hast
now inflicted upon the woman a severe wound, and that thou and thine
associates will continue to assail her: but, notwithstanding thine
eager desire to injure, thou shalt be able to inflict on mankind only
such wounds as are curable; while, on the contrary, the posterity of
the woman shall, at some future period, vanquish thee, and make thee
feel all thy weakness."
This interpretation is found as early as in the Targum of Jonathan, and
in that of Jerusalem, where, by the seed of the woman, are understood
the Jews, who, at the time of the Messiah, shall overcome Sammael.
Thus, too, does Paul explain it in Rom. xvi. 20, where the promise is
regarded as referring to Christians as a body. It has found,
subsequently, an able defender [Pg 29] in _Calvin_[3] and, in modern
times, in _Herder_.[4] The treatise of _Storr_, too (in the _Opusc._
ii.), is devoted to its defence.
Even according to this interpretation, the passage justly bears the
name of the _Protevangelium_, which has been given to it by the Church.
It is only in general terms, indeed, that the future victory of the
kingdom of light over that of darkness is foretold, and not the person
of the Redeemer who should lead in the warfare, and bestow the strength
which should be necessary for maintaining it. Anything beyond this we
are not even entitled to expect at the first beginnings of the human
race; a gradual progress is observable in the kingdom of grace, as well
as in that of nature.
It is certainly, however, not a matter of chance that the posterity of
the woman is not broken up into a plurality, but that, in order to
designate it, expressions in the singular (זרע and הוא) are chosen.
This unity, which, in the meanwhile, it is true, is only _ideal_, was
chosen with regard to the person of the Redeemer, who comprehends
within Himself the whole human race. And it is not less significant,
and has certainly a deeper ground, that the victory over the serpent is
assigned to the seed of the woman, not to the posterity of Adam; and
though, indeed, [Pg 30] the circumstance that the woman was first
deceived may have been the proximate cause of it, yet it cannot be
exclusively referred to, and derived from, it. By these remarks we come
still nearer to the view of the ancient Church.
Footnote 1: So, _e.g._ _Cramer_ in the _Nebenarbeiten zur Theologischen
Literatur_, St. 2.
Footnote 2: The positive reasons by which I there proved the reference
to Satan, have not been invalidated by the objections of _Hofmann_ in
his _Schriftbeweis_ i. 379. He says: As an adjective formed in a manner
similar to קלקל (Num. xxi. 6) must have an intransitive signification,
it cannot mean "separated," but according to its derivation from עזל =
אזל, it means: "altogether gone away." But this argument has no force.
The real import of the form of the word is gradation, and frequent
repetition. Instances of a passive signification are given in _Ewald's
Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_, § 157 c.: compare, _e.g._, Deut. xxxii. 5.
There is so much the stronger reason for adopting the passive
signification, that in Arabic also,--which alone can be consulted, as
the comparison with the Hebrew אזל has no sure foundation on which to
rest,--the root has the signification: _remotus, sepositus fuit_, and
the participle: _a ceteris se sejungens_. Compare _Egypt and the B.
M._, p. 169.
Footnote 3: He says,--This, therefore, is the sense of the passage:
"The human race, whom Satan had endeavoured to destroy, shall at length
be victorious. But, meanwhile, we must bear in mind the mode in which,
according to Scripture, that victory is to be achieved. According to
his own pleasure, Satan has, through all centuries, led captive the
sons of men, and even to this day he continues that sad victory. But,
since a stronger one has come down from heaven to subdue him, the whole
Church of God shall, under her Head, and like Him, be victorious."
Footnote 4: _Briefe das Studium der Theologie betr._ ii. S. 225 (Tüb.
1808): "The serpent had injured them; it had become to them a symbol of
evil, of seduction, and at the same time of God's curse, of contempt
and punishment. To men the encouraging prospect was held out, that
they, the seed of the woman, were stronger and nobler than the serpent,
and all evil. They should tread upon the head of the serpent, while the
latter should be able to avenge itself only by a slight wound in their
heel. In short, the good should gain the ascendancy over the evil. Such
was the prospect. How clear or how obscure it was to the first human
pair, it is not our present purpose to inquire. It is enough that the
noblest warrior against evil, the most valiant bruiser of the serpent's
head from among the descendants of Eve, was comprehended in this
prospect, and indeed pre-eminently referred to. Thus, then, only an
outline, as it were, was given to them in a figure, the import of which
only future times saw more clearly developed."
THE BLESSINGS OF NOAH UPON SHEM AND JAPHETH.
(Gen. ix. 18-27.)
Ver. 20. "_And Noah began and became an husbandman, and planted
vineyards._"--This does not imply that Noah was the first who began to
till the ground, and, more especially, to cultivate the vine; for Cain,
too, was a tiller of the ground, Gen. iv. 2. The sense rather is, that
Noah, after the flood, again took up this calling. Moreover, the remark
has not an independent import; it serves only to prepare the way for
the communication of the subsequent account of Noah's drunkenness. By
this remark, a defence of Noah on account of his drunkenness is
entirely cut off. Against such a defence _Luther_ expressed himself in
very strong terms: "They," says he, "who would defend the Patriarch in
this, wantonly reject the consolation which the Holy Ghost considered
to be necessary to the Church--the consolation, namely, that even the
greatest saints may, at times, stumble and fall."[1]
Ver. 21. "_And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was
uncovered within his tent._"
Ver. 22. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his
father, and told his two brethren without._"--David is reproved in 2
Sam. xii. 14, for having given occasion to the enemies of God to
blaspheme. The same reproof might justly be administered to Noah also.
Ham rejoiced to find a nakedness in him whose reproving earnestness had
often been a burden to his sinful soul. _Luther_ remarks: "There is no
doubt [Pg 31] that he (Noah) must have done much which was offensive to
his proud, high-minded, and presumptuous son.... For this reason we
must not regard this deed of Ham as mere child's play, as an action
destitute of all significance; but as the result of the bitterest
hatred and resentment of Satan, by which he prepares and excites his
members against the true Church, and specially against those who are in
the ministry. Let them, therefore, give earnest heed as to whether,
either in their persons or in their offices, they give any occasion for
blasphemy. We have in this history an example of divine terrors and
judgment, that we may take warning from the danger of Ham, and not
venture to be rash in judging, though we should see that a secular or
ecclesiastical authority, or even our parents, do err and fall."
Ver. 23. "_And Shem and Japheth took the garment._"--_Luther_ says:
"Such an outward and lovely reverence they could not have shown to
their father, if they had not, inwardly and in their hearts, been
rightly disposed towards God, and had not considered their father as a
high priest and king set over them by divine appointment." The mode of
expression indicates that the real impulse proceeded from Shem, and
that, as a prefiguration of what was to take place, Japheth only showed
susceptibility for the good, and a willingness to join with him. It is
true that the singular ויקח is not, by itself, decisive. When the verb
precedes, it is not absolutely necessary that it should agree with the
_subject_ in gender and number; but the use of the singular is,
nevertheless, remarkable. If Shem and Japheth had been equally active,
the latter also would, at once, have been present to the mind of the
writer. Under these circumstances, there is the less reason for
supposing that the use of the singular can be merely accidental,
especially as the words, "and he told his _two brethren_ without,"
immediately precede. But all doubt is removed by a second allusion,
which goes hand in hand with the first, and which is contained in the
following verse.
Ver. 24. "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger
son had done unto him._"--That Ham was older than Japheth, appears
from the circumstance that the order in which the sons of Noah are
introduced is uniformly thus: Shem, Ham, Japheth; or, beginning, as
in chap. x., from the youngest, [Pg 32] Japheth, Ham, Shem,--where,
however, in ver. 21, the words added immediately after Shem--"the
elder brother of Japheth," expressly indicate that, for a certain
purpose, the writer has proceeded in order from the youngest to the
oldest. It is altogether in vain that some have attempted to prove
from chap. xi. 10 (according to which Shem was, two years after the
flood, only a hundred years old), compared with chap. v. 32 (according
to which Noah began to beget when he was five hundred years old), that
Shem was not the first-born. The words in chap. v. 32 are: "And Noah
was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."
That the chronology can here be determined in a way which only
approximates to the truth, is implied, as a matter of course, in the
statement, that all the three sons were begotten when Noah was five
hundred years of age; nothing more is meant than that Noah begat them
after he had finished his fifth, or at the beginning of his sixth,
century. (Compare _Ranke's Untersuchungen_.) It is just an indefinite
statement of time which points forward to another genealogy, in which
the details will be given with greater precision. Ham everywhere stands
between the two; but that, nevertheless, he is, in this passage, called
the younger son, can be explained only on the ground that, in the case
before us, Shem and Ham are the two more especially noticed--Shem as
positively good, and Ham as positively evil, while Japheth only takes
part with Shem. We have thus laid an excellent foundation for the right
understanding of the subsequent prophetic utterance of Noah--for the
announcement, namely, of Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem.
Ver. 25. "_And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall
he be to his brethren._"--_Luther_ says: "Good old Noah, who is
regarded by his son as a foolish and stupid old man, deserving only of
mockery, appears here in truly prophetic majesty, and announces to his
sons a divine revelation of what shall come to pass in future days;
thus verifying what Paul says in 2 Cor. xii., that God's strength is
made perfect in weakness."
According to the opinion now current, Canaan is said to mean "lowland,"
and to be transferred from the land to the people, and from the people
to the pretended ancestor. But this opinion is shown to be untenable by
the considerations, that, according to historical tradition, Canaan
appears first as [Pg 33] the name of the ancestor;--that the verb כנע
is never used of natural lowness, but always of humiliation;--that in
our passage, where the name first occurs, it stands in connection with
servitude;--that the masculine form of the noun (on the adjective
termination _an_, compare _Ewald's Lehrb. d. Heb. Spr._ § 163, b.) is
not applicable to the country;--that the country Canaan is so far from
being a lowland, that it appears, everywhere in the Pentateuch, as a
land of hills (see Deut. xi. 2, iii. 25, where the land itself is even
called, "that goodly mountain");[2]--and, finally, that, from all
appearance, Canaan is primarily the name, not of the country, but of
the people--the former being called ארור כנען, the land of Canaan.
The real etymology of the name is almost expressly given in Judges iv.
23; ויכנע, "and God bowed down, or _humbled_, on that day Jabin the
king of _Canaan_." Compare also Deut. ix. 3, where, in reference to the
Canaanites, it is said, הוא יכניעם, "He will humble or subdue them;"
and Nehem. ix. 24: "Thou bowedest down before them the inhabitants of
the land--the Canaanites." Our passage also proceeds upon this
interpretation of the name. We are the rather induced to assume a
connection betwixt the name "Canaan," and the words, "a servant of
servants shall he be," as in the case of Japheth also there is
certainly an allusion to the signification of the name, and probably in
the case of Shem also. Perhaps even the name Ham, _i.e._, "the blackish
one," may be connected with the character which he here displays--a
suggestion which we do not here follow up. We refer, however, for an
analogy, to what has been remarked in our Commentary on the Psalms, in
the Introduction of Ps. vii.
Canaan means: "the submissive one." It is a name which the people
themselves, on whose monuments it appears, would never have
appropriated to themselves (just as in the case of the Egyptians also,
on which point _Gesenius_ in the _Thesaurus_, and my work _Egypt_,
etc., p. 210, may be compared), unless it had been proper to them from
their very origin. Ham gave this name to his son from the obedience
which he demanded, but [Pg 34] did not himself yield. The son was to be
the servant of the father (for the name suggests servile obedience),
who was as despotical to his inferiors as he was rebellious against his
superiors. When the father gave that name to his son, he thought only
of submissiveness to _his_ orders; but God, who, in His mysterious
providence, disposes of all these matters, had another submissiveness
in view.
But why is Canaan cursed and not Ham? For an answer to this question,
we are at liberty neither to fall back upon the sovereign decree of
God, as _Calvin_ does, nor to say with _Hofmann_: "Canaan is the
youngest son of Ham (Gen. x. 6); and because Ham, the youngest son of
Noah, had caused so much grief to the father, he, in return, is to
experience great grief from his youngest son." This latter view rests
upon false historical suppositions. We have already proved that Ham was
not the youngest son of Noah; and it by no means follows from Gen. x.
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 circumstance
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 passage 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 passage,
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 passages, 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 Phœnicians and Carthaginians.
The remainder of Ham's posterity are passed 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 Japheth, although the circumstance 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
circumstance, 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 passage, Ezek. xvi. 46.)
[Pg 36]
"The curse is contrasted with the blessing pronounced on Shem and
Japheth, and the second member of ver. 25 is, in vers. 26, 27, used as
a repetition in reference to each of the two brethren, who were, in it,
viewed together."--(_Tuch._)
Ver. 26. "_And he said: Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Shem; and Canaan
shall be a servant to them._"--The Patriarch Noah,--a just man, and one
who walked before God (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 God, 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. xxx. 20, instead
of blessing Gad, blesses him by whom Gad is enlarged. The manner in
which God is here spoken of indicates, _indirectly_, what that is in
which the blessing consists. _First_,--God 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 institutions for
salvation.[4] _Secondly_,--Jehovah is called the God of Shem,--the
first passage of Holy Scripture in which God is called the God of some
person. Both these circumstances indicate that God 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 God 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 Japheth." As yet Shem and Japheth were on
an equal footing. In the preceding part of the narrative, nothing
had been communicated by which God had, in His relation to Shem,
given up His nature as Elohim, and had become his God. It is only
by anticipation, then, that God can, in His relation to Shem, be
designated as Jehovah, and as the God of Shem. The thought can, when
fully brought out, be this alone: "Blessed be God, who will, in future,
reveal Himself as Jehovah, and as the God of Shem."
If it be overlooked that, in this appellation of God, 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 God
of my master Abraham," imply the thought: because He has manifested
Himself as Jehovah, and as the God of my master; which thought is then
further carried out in the subsequent words: "And who hath not left
destitute 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 [κύριος], the God of Israel," imply the thought:
because He has manifested Himself as the Lord [in the New Testament,
κύριος is used where the Old has Jehovah], the God 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 gratitude 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 Japheth'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 ־־ָ־מוֹ,
which cannot be used for the singular, any more than can the suffix
־־ָ־ם, 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 God enlarge Japheth, 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 pronounced upon Japheth; but they
entitle us to infer from them, at the same time, a glorious blessing
destined for Shem, which is the source of blessing to Japheth 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 יַפְתְּ, which refers to, and is explanatory of,
the name יֶפֶת (_i.e._ Japheth), is the future apoc. _Hiphil_ of פָּתָה. 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 God allure Japheth that he
may dwell in the tents of Shem." _Luther_ also, in his Commentary, thus
explains it: "God will kindly speak to Japheth;" while, in his
translation, he has: "May God enlarge Japheth."--But to this
interpretation it has been rightly objected, that the verb פתה 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 ל, but always with the
accusative.--All interpreters now agree that (in conformity with the
LXX. [πλατύναι ὁ Θεὸς τῷ Ἰάφεθ], the _Vulgate_ [_dilatet Deus Japhet_],
and _Onkelos_) יַפְתְּ must be derived from פתה in its primary
signification, "to be wide, large," in which it is found in Prov. xx.
19 (where שפתיו [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: God shall give
to Japheth a numerous posterity, which shall take possession of
extended territories; while others find here expressed the idea of
general prosperity: God shall prosper Japheth, 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
Japheth'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 God will be to him Jehovah, _his_ God; 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 Japheth, 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 destitute 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 יפת 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 הרחיב, "to make wide,
to enlarge," when construed with ל, 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. xxxiii. 20: "Blessed be He that
enlargeth Gad." (In this passage, 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. xxx.
11: "And Leah said, For good luck;[5] and she called his name Gad"], is
favourable to our view, as well as the circumstance, 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 יַפְתְּ of
prosperity and happiness, is countenanced also by the consideration
that, in such circumstances, the name Japheth 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 Japheth. Elohim here stands in strict contrast
with Jehovah, the God of Shem. It is only by dwelling in the tents of
Shem, that Japheth passes 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 God," whose priest he is, according to verse 20; while Abraham, on
the contrary, speaks, in verse 22, of "Jehovah the most high God."
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: "God shall indeed enlarge and prosper Japheth, but He shall
dwell in the tents of Shem." [Pg 41] The inferior blessing of Japheth
would thus be contrasted with the superior one of Shem, among whose
posterity God 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_:
"God shall extend Japheth, and His Shechinah shall dwell in the tents
of Shem." The ancient book _Breshith Rabba_ remarks on this passage:
"The Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem." (See _Schöttgen_, _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 Japheth 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 Japheth, 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 Japheth. The subject--Jehovah--could not in this case
have been omitted before ישכן. _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 repetition, as in ver. 25 Canaan had been doomed to be a
servant to _his brethren_--nor can they be referred to Shem and Japheth
at the same time; the analogy of the למו 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 Japheth only, the
clause in which the dwelling in the tents of Shem is spoken of, must
likewise be referred to Japheth. To these arguments we may _further_
add, that there is something altogether strange in the expression: "God
shall dwell in the tents of Shem." There is, in Holy Scripture,
frequent mention of God'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 God; but nowhere is [Pg
42] God 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 Japheth being concluded with it. We must not, moreover,
lose sight of the consideration, that when we refer the second clause
also to Japheth, there springs up a beautiful connection between the
relation of Shem and Japheth to each other in the present, and during
their future progress. As the reaction against the corruption of
Ham had originated with Shem, and Japheth had only joined him in it;
so in future also, the real home of piety and salvation will be with
Shem, to whom Japheth, in the felt need of salvation, shall come near.
_Finally_,--The analogy 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 Japheth.
And if the Lord, alluding to our passage, 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" (σκηνή = אהל),
He expresses the view which we are now defending. For, in that passage,
it is not God 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 Japheth to be the subject, several (_J.
D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Knobel_) 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 שם is
here, however, primarily a proper name, is shown by the preceding
verse.
The translation, "Japheth 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 Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, that the true
religion would be preserved among the posterity of Shem, and would pass
over from them to the descendants of Japheth, who should be received
into the community [Pg 43] of the worshippers of the true God. So
_Jonathan_ explained its meaning: "The Lord shall make glorious the end
of Japheth; 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 passage is to be understood literally,
as foretelling that the posterity of Japheth 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 passage 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 Japheth with the announcement of
salvation only, it is not likely that a dwelling of Japheth 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 Japheth will step beyond his
borders, and will invade the territory naturally belonging to Shem. If
Japheth assume the dominion of Shem over Canaan, he must then dwell in
the tents of Shem in a sense different from the merely spiritual one.
_Finally_--Even in other passages of the Pentateuch, an invasion of
Shem's territory by Japheth is foretold. In Num. xxiv. 24, Balaam says:
"And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim and shall afflict
Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish." "We have
here (compare my monography on Balaam) the announcement of a future
conquest of the Asiatic kingdoms by nations from Europe, such as was
historically realized in the Asiatic dominion of the Greeks and
Romans."
[Pg 44]
On the other hand, however, it must not by any means be supposed that
Noah should, in favour of Japheth, have weakened the power of the
brilliant promise given to Shem by the announcement of such a sad
event; for it is evidently his intention to exalt Shem above his
brethren, as highly as he had excelled them both in his piety towards
his father.
The difficulties which stand in the way of either explanation are
easily removed by the following consideration. The occupation of the
land of Shem by Japheth is the condition of Japheth's dwelling in the
tents of Shem. Why this dwelling is a blessing to Japheth--"God shall
enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell," etc.--appears from what precedes,
according to which, God reveals Himself to Shem as Jehovah, and becomes
_his_ God. To be received into the fellowship of Jehovah--to find Him
in the tents of Shem--constitutes the blessing promised to Japheth. But
if such be the case, there can be no more room for speaking of an
announcement of any event adverse to Shem. Underneath the adversity,
joy is hidden. It will here be fulfilled in its highest sense, that the
conquered give laws to the conquerors.
"And Canaan shall be a servant to them." The servitude of Canaan was
completed by Japheth, among whose sons (Gen. x. 2) Madai also appears;
so that even the Medo-Persian kingdom is one of Japheth's. Phœnicia was
completely overthrown by him. Haughty Tyrus fell to the ground. Zech.
ix. 3, 4, when announcing the Greek dominion (compare ver. 13), says:
"And Tyrus did build herself a stronghold, and heaped up silver like
dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets. Behold, the Lord will
cast her out, and He will smite her power in the sea, and she shall be
devoured with fire."
The objection raised by _Tuch_ and _Hofmann_, that the Greeks and
Romans made Shem also their servant, is, after what has been remarked,
destitute of all weight, inasmuch as the servitude then had reference
only to the lower territory. Shem and Judah were not injured in that
which, in ver. 26, had been pointed at as their chief and peculiar
good. On the contrary, it shone out, on that occasion, in its highest
glory. Canaan, however, lost that upon which he set the highest value.
In the case of Canaan, the servitude was the consequence of the curse;
but in the case of Shem, the outward servitude was a consequence of [Pg
45] the blessing, the most emphatic verification of the words: "Blessed
be Jehovah, the God of Shem."
It must indeed fill us with adoring wonder when we see how clearly and
distinctly the outlines of the world's history, as well as of the
history of Salvation, are here traced. "This," says _Calvin_, "is
indeed a support to our faith of no common strength, that the calling
of the Gentiles was not only predestined in God's eternal decree, but
also publicly proclaimed by the mouth of the Patriarch; so that we are
not required to believe that by a sudden and fortuitous event merely,
the inheritance of eternal life was proclaimed to all men in common."
It is not a matter of _chance_ that this prophecy was given immediately
after the deluge, which stands out as so great an event in the history
of the fallen human race,--the first event, indeed, subsequent to the
fall, with which the _Protevangelium_ was connected. A new period
begins with the calling of Abraham, and in it we obtain another
link in the chain of the prophecies,--a link which fits as exactly
into that which is now under consideration, as did this into the
_Protevangelium_. The import of this prophecy is: "The kingdom of God
shall be established in Shem, and Japheth shall be received into its
community."--The meaning of the prophecy which is now to engage our
attention is: "By the posterity of the Patriarchs all the nations of
the earth shall be blessed." The promise to the Patriarchs differs,
however, from the prophecy upon which we have just commented, not only
in the natural progress--that from among the descendants of Shem a
narrower circle is separated--but in this circumstance also, that in
the former the blessing is extended to all the nations of the earth,
while in the latter Ham is passed over in silence. This difference,
however, has its main foundation in the historical circumstances of the
latter prophecy; although, it is true, the complete silence which is
observed regarding him, calls forth apprehensions about his being less
susceptible of salvation, or, at least, of his not occupying any
prominent position in the development of the kingdom of God. Here,
where the object was to punish Ham for his wickedness, not the
prosperous, but the adverse events impending upon him in his posterity,
are brought prominently out; while, on the other hand, to Shem and
Japheth blessings alone are foretold.
Footnote 1: The object of this event, as pointed out by _Calvin_, viz.,
that God intended to give to all coming ages, in the person of Noah, a
warning and an exhortation to temperance, would likewise be frustrated
by this unwarrantable apology.
Footnote 2: The reverse is the case with reference to Aram, which is
essentially a lowland, while these critics would have us to believe
that it means "highland." (Compare _Baur_ on Amos, S. 229.)
Footnote 3: _Bochart_ remarks: "He cursed the guilty one in his own
person, because the source and nourishment of evil is in man himself.
But, rejoiced at Shem's piety, he rather blessed the Lord, because he
knew that God is the Author of everything which is good."
Footnote 4: With reference to the difference between these two names,
compare the disquisitions in the author's "_Genuineness of the Pent._,"
vol. i. p. 213 ff.
Footnote 5: Our English authorized version translates the first clause
of this verse thus: "And Leah said, A troop cometh,"--a rendering which
cannot be objected to on etymological grounds, and which receives some
support from Gen. xlix. 19. The ancient versions, however, are quite
unanimous in assigning to the גד in בגד the signification of "fortune,"
"good luck;" and render it either: "in or for good luck;" "luckily,"
"happily" (so the LXX. et Vulg.), or, following _Onkelos_ and the
Mazorets: "good luck has come."--(Tr.)
[Pg 46]