If we take the passage, _Gen._ vi. 2, 3, as it stands in connection, it
seems to us an obvious deduction that the commingling of the races of
Seth and Cain was obnoxious to the Lord.
It is placed in position as the cause why his Spirit should not always
strive. He saw that such amalgamation would, did deteriorate and destroy
the more holy race of Seth; and therefore determined, with grief in his
heart, to destroy man from the earth. All were swept away, except Noah,
his three sons, and their four wives. Yet sin found a residence among
the sons of Noah, and Canaan was doomed to perpetual bondage, as it now
exists upon the earth. “And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of
servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord
God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth,
and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his
servant.” _Gen._ ix. 25–27.
The expression “_servant of servants_” is translated from the words
עֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים _ebed abadim, slave of slaves_. The expression is
idiomatic, and means the most abject slave.
In the passage quoted, the word servant, in all cases, is translated
from _ebed_, and means slave. There was no master placed over Adam,—it
is not certain there was over Cain,—but here the master is named and
blessed; and the slave is named, and his slavery pronounced to be of the
most abject kind. If we mistake not, it is an article of the Christian
creed of most churches, that Adam was the federal head and
representative of his race; that the covenant was made, not only with
Adam, but also with his posterity; that the guilt of his sin was imputed
to them; that each and every one of his posterity are depraved through
his sin; that this, their original sin, is properly sin, and deserves
God’s wrath and curse. If so, can we say less in the case of Cain? or
that a new relation did intervene in the case of Ham?
------------------