Genesis 9:25

25. And he said] Noah’s utterance of a curse upon Canaan and of a blessing upon Shem and Japheth is expressed in poetical terms. The solemn words of a father, as the head of his house, concerning his sons, partook of the character of prophecy, and were expressed in brief oracular sentences. Cf. in the story of Jacob chs. 27, 48 and 49.

Cursed be Canaan] Three times over, in these verses, is the curse repeated against Canaan, while a blessing is pronounced upon Shem and Japheth. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Canaan here stands on a level with Shem and Japheth, and that he is regarded as Noah’s third son; as, indeed, is expressly indicated by the mention of “his brethren” (Gen_9:22; Gen_9:25). The explanation that the wrong-doing of “Ham” is punished by the curse levelled at Canaan, a son of Ham, seems most improbable; but this is the only explanation which the words of the text in Gen_9:22, making “Ham, the father of Canaan,” the offender, will admit. The mention of “Ham” in that verse is almost certainly a late insertion for harmonizing purposes.

A servant of servants] i.e. the meanest of servants, the slave of slaves. Lat. servus servorum. For this method of expressing the superlative, cf. “the Holy of holies,” i.e. the innermost Sanctuary (Exo_26:33); “prince of the princes” (Num_3:32); “God of gods, Lord of lords” (Deu_10:17; Psa_136:2-3); “Song of Songs,” i.e. the fairest of songs (Son_1:1); “the King of kings,” i.e. the Omnipotent (Eze_26:7).

unto his brethren] Canaan is to be the slave of Shem and Japheth. The oracle predicts the subjugation of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and forecasts their inability to resist the power of Japheth. The precise manner in which the subjection of Canaan to Japheth was historically realized must be left uncertain. There is no suggestion of a whole race doomed to a condition of slavery. The application of this clause to the African races is an error of interpretation. Doubtless the power of the Japhetic races was from time to time successfully asserted against the Phoenicians. Japheth represents the races of the West and North.

If Canaan be not here regarded as the brother of Shem and Japheth, it must be assumed that the punishment of Ham is to be inflicted upon his son, Canaan. This is the usual explanation; but it breaks down in view of the fact that all the names are used symbolically and representatively, and the oracle has reference, in each case, not to the individuals, but to their descendants. Hence there would be no point in singling out a son of the real offender, instead of indicating the offender himself.

SPECIAL NOTE ON Gen_9:25-27

There is much uncertainty as to the period of history to which the Song, or Oracle, of Noah may be considered to refer. In all probability, the question must be left undecided.

1. It has been understood to refer to the times of David. Shem, i.e. the Israelites, have subjugated Canaan. Japheth, i.e. the Philistines, coming from the West, have first inflicted defeat upon the Canaanites, and then occupied the S.W. portion of the country of Palestine. But is it possible that an Israelite poet would have spoken so favourably of the Philistines, and have described their arrival under the simile of Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem?

2. It has been understood to refer to the times either of Solomon or of Ahab. Shem, i.e. the Israelites, have subjugated Canaan, and have entered into terms of friendship with Japheth, i.e. the Phoenician; king of Tyre. It is obviously an objection that, in Gen_10:15, the Phoenicians are ranked among the sons of Canaan. Moreover, it is hardly probable that the devout Israelite would offer to the worshippers of Baal a welcome into the tents of the servants of Jehovah.

3. It has been conjectured (by Gunkel) that the poem has reference to the great racial movements of the second millennium b.c., and that Canaan may represent the earliest Semitic immigrants into Palestine; Shem, the invading races of Aramaeans and Hebrews; Japheth, the northern nations, and, in particular, the Hittites. It may be doubted, whether the migratory invasion of Aramaean and Hebrew peoples would ever have been comprehended by an Israelite singer under the single symbolic name of Shem; and, also, whether he would have regarded any other peoples besides Israel as belonging to Jehovah. Again, if so wide a designation be assigned to Shem, the prayer that Japheth may “dwell in the tents of Shem” becomes unintelligible.

4. It has been conjectured, by Bertholet, that the Song has reference to a late period; that Shem represents the post-exilic Jews; Canaan, the heathen dwellers in Palestine and Phoenicia; Japheth, the Greeks under Alexander, who conquered and subjugated Phoenicia, and received a welcome from the Jews of Jerusalem. But this, beside other improbabilities, assumes too late a date for the composition of the Song.

5. It is better, for the present, to leave our judgement in suspense. But, in all probability, we should be right in supposing that under “Jehovah, the God of Shem,” is contained a reference to the people of Israel; and that in the denunciation of Canaan, “A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren,” is implied a time when the subjugation of the Canaanites was not yet complete; when they were still formidable; and when the support of Japheth (unknown peoples (?) in the north) was likely to prove a welcome assistance, though only of a temporary nature, to Israel.

The period, then, might conceivably be not long after the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan.

It only remains to point out the importance of this poetical Oracle in the literature of the Old Testament. (1) It treats of the movements of the nations as ordered and guided by Jehovah. It may thus be described as possibly the first product of Israelite prophecy. (2) In its attitude of generous trust towards Japheth, it is an early example of the spirit of tolerance towards the stranger, which in later Judaism was almost lost in narrow exclusiveness1[14].

[14] I am indebted to the discussion of this Song in G. Adam Smith’s Schweich Lectures, 1910, pp. 46–49.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Ver. 25. And he said, Cursed be Canaan.] Because an imitator, and abettor of his father’s sin. Neither good egg, nor good bird, as they say. God himself hath cursed such captives with a curse. {Pro 30:17} "The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother; the ravens of the valley shall pick it out; and the young eagles shall eat it." {a} Now they are cursed with a witness, whom the Holy Ghost thus curseth, in such emphatical manner, with such exquisite terms. Their parents also, through their unnaturalness, are compelled to curse them, as Noah here: as Oedipus of old; {b} and our Henry II., who, seeing a few hours before he died, a list of their names that had conspired, with the King of France and Earl Richard (his son and successor), against him, and finding therein his son John to be the first, falls into a grievous passion, both cursing his sons, and the day wherein himself was born; and in that distemperature, departs the world, which so often himself had distempered. {c} "The causeless curse," indeed (though from a parent’s mouth), "shall not come". {Pro 26:2} Such was it that befell Julius Palmer, martyr, {d} who, when he asked his mother’s blessing, "Thou shalt," said she, "have Christ’s curse and mine, wheresoever thou goest." He, pausing a little, as one amazed at so heavy a greeting, at length said: "O mother, your own curse you may give me, which God knoweth I never deserved; but God’s curse you cannot; for he hath already blessed me, and I shall be blessed." "As for money and goods," said she, "which thou suest to me for, as bequeathed thee by thy father, I have none of thine. Thy father bequeathed nothing for heretics. Faggots I have to burn thee; more thou gettest not at my hands." "Mother," said he, "whereas you have cursed me, I again pray to God to bless and prosper you, all your life long." And so he departed, and shortly after, valiantly suffered for the truth, at Newbury in Berkshire, having some time been Fellow of Magdalen College in Oxford, and all King Edward’s days an obstinate Papist. Thus for the causeless curse of parents. {e} But where it is just, it lights heavy. The very complaint of a parent makes a loud cry in God’s ears. It is said, that God, by cutting off Abimelech, "rendered the wickedness that he did to his father". {Jdg 9:56} And who can read with dry eyes that pitiful supplication of the old Emperor Andronicus to his young nephew of the same name (Turk. Hist., fol. 172)? But when it proceeds to a curse, lamentable effects have followed. Leonard, son of the Lord Dacres (one of the rebels in the north against Queen Elizabeth), whose father prayed God upon his death-bed, to send him much sorrow for his disobedience, drew forth a most poor life in the Netherlands, to where he escaped, living upon a very slender pension from the Spaniards. {f} That rebellion (like the bubbles which children blow up into the air) was no sooner blown up, than blown out, and fell into the eyes of those who with the blasts of ambition and superstition held it up. But most remarkable is that, and apposite to our present purpose, that Manlius reports {g} of a certain mother, whom he and many others had seen leading about her miserable daughter, who was possessed by the devil upon her cursing her, and bidding "the devil take her." Involet in te diabolus . Luther and others prayed publicly for the girl; and when Luther said to the devil, Increpet te Deus ," The Lord rebuke thee, Satan," the devil answered, muttering through the maid’s lips, Increpet, increpet . Another like example, the same author hath, {h} of a certain angry old man, in the town of Friburg in Misnia, who bidding his son do some business for him, and he making no haste to do it, nor stirring from the place he stood in; the father cursed him, and wished he might never stir alive from that place. God said Amen to it: and although he lived seven years after, yet there he stood leaning upon a desk while he slept, eating little, and speaking not much. When he was asked how he did, he would answer, that he was chastised justly by God, in whose hand it was what should at length become of him here. But of his eternal salvation, by the merits of Christ alone, he nothing doubted; being chastised of the Lord, that he might not be condemned with the world. The prints of his feet are to be seen in the pavement where he stood, to this day, saith the historian. After seven years’ suffering, he departed in the true faith of Christ, with good hopes of a better estate in heaven, September the eleventh, Anno 1552.

A servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.] In which title the Pope of Rome (not without the providence of God) will needs be his successor. A servant of God’s servants he will by all means be called. And yet he stamps upon his coin, "That Nation and Country that will not serve thee, shall be rooted out." What pride equal to the pope’s, making kings kiss his pantofles (upon which he hath Christ’s cross shining with pearls and precious stones, Ut plenis faucibus crucem Christi derideat)! What humility greater than his, to administer himself absolution daily to an ordinary priest! One while he will be styled, Servus servorum Dei ; another while, Dominus regnorum mundi , which is one of the devil’s titles; yea, Dominus Deus noster Papa ; taking upon him a power to excommunicate the very angels; yea, lifting up himself above Christ, who is called Pontifex Magnus ,{ Heb 4:14} but the Pope calls himself Pontifex Maximus . Gregory the Great was the first that styled himself "a servant of servants"; in opposition, forsooth, to that proud prelate of Constantinople, who affected to be called Universal Bishop. But after the death of Mauricius, when Phocas the traitor came to be emperor, this Gregory clawed him shamefully, and all to attain that dignity and dominion that he so much condemned in another. {i} The Pope of Constantinople could not bear a superior, nor the Pope of Rome an equal. The one sought to subdue to himself the East; the other, East and West too: and thence grew all the heat between them. See the like ambition under the colour of zeal for their religion in Selymus the Turk, and Hismael the Persian. {j}

{a} Effossos oculos voret atro guture corvus . - Catul.

{b} Per coacervatos pereat domus impia luctus . - Oedip. apud Ovid.

{c} Daniel’s Chron., p. 112.

{d} Act. and Mon., fol 1755, 1761.

{e} The wild Irish inflict a heavy curse on all their posterity, if ever they should sow corn, build houses, or learn the English tongue. - Heyl. Geog., 508.

{f} Camden’s Elisab., p. 116,117.

{g} Joh. Manlii, loc. com., 228.

{h} Joh. Manlii, loc. com., 228.

{i} Sands’ Relation of West. Relig., sect. 12. - Johan. 23. in Extravag. - Phocae adulari, supparasitari, &c., ut suam potestatem per favorem parricidae extenderet. - Revii Hist. Pontif., p. 45.

{j} Turk. Hist., fol. 515.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen_9:25-27

Cursed be Canaan

The sons of Noah

I.

The curse of Canaan was SERVITUDE. Noah saw in Ham and his son some traits of character that showed a moral inferiority, which he foresaw would have an effect upon their descendants, and would be visited by God with chastisement and disapproval.

II. The blessing of Shem was RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE. Israel was alone among the nations in respect of their superior knowledge of God. From this Shemitic people was in future days to go forth the Law and the Word of God (Isa_2:3), which were to bring all other nations to God.

III. The blessing of Japheth was ENLARGEMENT. His name means widely-extending; and his descendants were great colonizers, spreading over Europe in one direction, over Persia and India in another. LESSONS:--

1. That the Lord is King ruling over all, and that He judges among the nations.

2. That the Lord is Saviour, and provides for the way in which His truth shall be preserved amid the wickedness of men, and shall finally subdue and renovate the world.

3. That all nations, whether subjected to others, or widely extending their power, should learn to serve and praise Jehovah, God of Shem. (W. S. Smith, B. D.)

Lessons

1. Gracious souls may sleep awhile in sin, but they awake again.

2. Awaking saints sadly resent their fails, and depart from evil.

3. God brings to light the wicked practices of ungracious ones against His saints, and sheweth it to His prophets (Gen_9:28).

4. Cognisance taken by God and His prophets of wicked practices foreruns a curse.

5. A father may be a minister of a curse from God upon his own children, and he must not spare, as here in Noah, and in Jacob.

6. The curse of God on body and soul finds men in their impieties against Him and their parents.

7. Gods curse pursueth the children that go on in their fathers steps (Canaan).

8. Such as abuse sonship in the Church, may justly look to be made slaves unto it. The vilest of slavery is their portion. Such is the curse of Ham. (G. Hughes, B. D.)

Scripture predictions

The manner of Scripture here is worthy of particular remark.

1. The prediction takes its rise from a characteristic incident. The conduct of the brothers was of comparatively slight importance in itself, but in the disposition which it betrayed it was highly significant.

2. The prediction refers in terms to the near future and to the outward condition of the parties concerned.

3. It foreshadows under these familiar phrases the distant future, and the inward, as well as the outward, state of the family of man.

4. It lays out the destiny of the whole race from its very starting point. These simple laws will be found to characterize the main body of the predictions of Scripture. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)

The curse of Canaan, and its fulfilment

Canaan is under a curse of servitude to both Shem and Japheth: the former was fulfilled in the conquest of the seven nations of Israel; and the latter in the subjugation of the Tyrians and Carthaginians, who were the remainder of the old Canaanites, by the Greeks and Romans. So far as the curse had reference to the other descendants of Ham, it was a long time, as I have said, ere it came upon them. In the early ages of the world they flourished. They were the first who set up for empire; and so far from being subject to the descendants of Shem or Japheth, the latter were often invaded and driven into corners by them. It was Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, who founded the imperial city of Babylon; and Mizraim, another of his descendants, who first established the kingdom of Egypt. These, it is well known, were for many ages two of the greatest empires in the world. About the time of the Captivity, however, God began to cut short their power. Both Egypt and Babylon within a century sank into a state of subjection, first to the Persians, who descended from Shem, and afterwards to the Greeks and Romans, who were the children of Japheth. Nor have they ever been able to recover themselves: for to the dominion of the Romans succeeded that of the Saraeens, and to theirs that of the Turks, under watch they with a great part of Africa, which is peopled by the children of Ham, have lived and still live in the most degraded state of subjection. To all this may be added that the inhabitants of Africa seem to be marked out as objects of slavery by the European nations. Though these things are far from excusing the conduct of their oppressors, yet they establish the fact, and prove the fulfilment of prophecy. (A. Fuller.)

The question of a curse upon children to remote periods

Let us proceed to offer a remark or two on the justice of the Divine proceeding in denouncing a curse upon children, even to remote periods, for the iniquity of their parents. It is worthy of notice that the God of Israel thought it no dishonour to His character to declare that He would visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children in those that hated Him, any more than that He would show mercy to those that loved Him, which He did in an eminent degree to the posterity of Abram. And should any object to this, and to the Bible on this account, we might appeal to universal fact. None can deny that children are the better or the worse for the conduct of their parents. If any man insist that neither good nor evil shall befal him but what is the immediate consequence of his own conduct, he must go out of the world; for no such state of existence is known in it.

1. There is, however, an important difference between the sin of a parent being the occasion of the prediction of a curse upon his posterity, who were considered by Him who knew the end from the beginning as walking in His steps, and its being the formal cause of their punishment. The sin of Ham was the occasion of the prediction against the Canaanites, and the antecedent to the evil predicted; but it was not the cause of it. Its formal procuring cause may be seen in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. To Ham, and perhaps to Canaan, the prediction of the servitude of their descendants was a punishment: but the fulfilment of that prediction on the parties was no farther such than as it was connected with their own sin.

2. There is also an important difference between the providential dispensations of God towards families and nations in the present world, and the administration of distributive justice towards individuals with respect to the world to come. In the last judgment, everyone shall give an account of himself to God, and be judged according to the deeds done in the body: but while we are in this world we stand in various relations, in which it is impossible that we should be dealt with merely as individuals. God deals with families and nations as such; and in the course of His providence visits them with good and evil, not according to the conduct of individuals, but as far as conduct is concerned, that of the general body. To insist that we should in all cases be treated as individuals, is to renounce the social character. (A. Fuller.)

Predictions respecting the sons of Noah

I. WE RETRACE SACRED HISTORY TO FIND WHEN GOD SPOKE, AND TO KNOW WHAT GOD HAS SPOKEN OF A PREDICTIVE CHARACTER. Noah began to be an husbandman. Upon partaking of the wine produced from the first full ripe grape, unaccustomed to such a beverage, and indulging too incautiously in its use, he was drunken! Yes, in the most lawful duties and pleasures we are liable to temptation. Neither age nor character afford perfect security from spiritual harm. Connected with this evil of excessive drinking, was the loss of self-government. Shamelessness and drunkenness are common associates. He lies uncovered within his tent. And as the sins of Israel rarely escape the eyes of the Canaanites, so Ham observed his father, and, fool-like, made a mock of his sin. It is a terrible mark of a vitiated mind when men not only do evil, but take pleasure in them that do the same! Shem and Japheth, displeased at the conduct of their brother, and concerned for their fathers reputation, took a garment and laid it upon their shoulders, and went backward, and cavered the nakedness of their father.

II. We shall now proceed to make some remarks relating to THE MEANING OF THESE PREDICTIONS, and thus prepare the way for marking their agreements with history.

1. The order of names is not the order of the age of the sons of Noah, but rather of the development of the truth of the predictions relating to them.

2. These predictions relate to the nations originating in these sons of Noah, and not to the sons of Noah themselves.

3. These predictions wear a general aspect. Here in some six or seven sentences we have an epitome of the worlds history. There is no room for detail. Here are portrayed certain commanding features.

4. In tracing the fulfilment of these predictions we must have assistance from the geography of the world, over which these descendants of Noah were scattered. We must see these nations separate; or if together, we must see some strong physical or philological affinities between the families issuing from these several parent sources.

5. In tracing the settlement of these descendants of Noah, we must remember that their first division only embraced a small portion of the earths surface. Now, here is wisdom; as these separate tribes enlarged, they went on to occupy regions more and more remote from each other.

III. Let us now consider THE AGREEMENT SUBSISTING BETWEEN THESE PREDICTIONS AND THE GREAT OUTLINES OF HISTORY.

1. Adopting the order before us, we shall first notice the descendants of Ham and their servitude. Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants--a slave--shall he be unto his brethren. Looking at the early history of his descendants, we see that Nimrod, one of that number, founded the Babylonian, and some think the Assyrian states. Reading the eleventh verse of the eighteenth chapter thus: Out of that land he went forth to Assyria and built Nineveh: a reading the more probable, because the historian is there relating the exploits of the mighty hunter. Mizraim established the kingdom of Egypt. Indeed, Egypt is called, in Scripture, the land of Mizraim; and the Easterns designate it in the same way. My brethren, you are familiar with the names of Egypt and Babylon. You know that the Hebrews, the seed of Shorn, were subdued and oppressed for a season by both of these powers. And yet the method of their deliverance from this servitude afforded a brilliant discovery of Gods mindfulness of His covenant. What terrible judgments were inflicted upon Egypt, in order to effect the exodus of the Israelites! How many curses fell upon the children of Ham, because they oppressed the seed of Shem! The people that once tyrannized over the Israelites are now under despotic power, taxed in their produce almost beyond endurance, inflicting injuries upon their own persons to unfit them for the service of their proud governor: they tell us that the sceptre of Mizraim has passed away, that Egypt is the basest of kingdoms. They serve as slaves, and are wasted by the hands of strangers. May He who smote Egypt, heal it. May they return to the Lord, and He shall be entreated of them and shall heal them (Isa_19:1-25). Look at Africa I See how its better portions have been subjected by the Romans, the Saraceus, the Turks. It was on her coast that a colony of emigrants from Tyre--Phoenicians, descendants of Ham, and a people distinguished for navigation and commerce--sought to make to themselves a name and a kingdom, by founding the famed city of Carthage. But the proud city was destroyed by the Romans, and a consul was directed to preside over the province as the deputy of a Japhetic power. Numbers survived the terrible massacre and ruin. And numbers still survive these and kindred calamities, and people the interior of that mighty continent. Still the children of Ham dwell upon Africs burning sands; but what curses follow them.

2. We pass on to notice the descendants of Shem and their privileged connection with Jehovah. Blessed be the Lord God of Shorn, and Canaan shall be his servant. As there is a special line of descent referred to in the tenth chapter of Genesis, we shall confine our remarks to the prediction before us as agreeing with certain facts in the history of the Jewish people. Now, the prediction refers us not so much to their temporal importance, or to the extent of their territory, as to certain moral and religious advantages. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. Some critics render it, Blessed of Jehovah my God be Shorn. Following our oxen version, it amounts to the same; for blessed is that people whose God is the Lord. But there is a difference in the form of cursing and blessing. The prophetic patriarch says, Cursed be Canaan, for all evil is from men themselves; and you will remember that the children of Ham were first wicked and then wretched. But when he speaks of blessing, he ascribes all the praise to that Being from whom cometh every perfect gift. The holiness of Shem must be traced to the free grace of God. And had the holiest Hebrew been dealt with according to his desert, he would have lost the blessing. Not unto them, O Lord, but unto Thy name be all the praise, for Thy mercy and Thy truth salve. The facts of Jewish history, which we think at agreement with the prediction before us, are these. The knowledge of the true religion, the knowledge of God, and covenant relationship to Jehovah as a visible Church, were confined, from Noah to Christ, two thousand years, almost entirely to the descendants of Shem, and especially to the Hebrews. It appears that Eber was living, and bad two sons at the time the earth was divided (Gen_10:25); and upon the supposition that his name gave rise to that of the Hebrew language and people, it is likely that by him and by his posterity the original Adamic and Noahic language (supposing that the Hebrew) was preserved uncorrupt; that he was the follower of Shem, his pious ancestor, and that from him proceeded that visible Church which has remained in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation a witness for Jehovah. The sacred historian having told us of the children of Eber, informs us that then was the earth divided, and henceforward the genealogy of Noahs descendants is confined to the line of Shem. Reading on in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, we arrive at the Abrahamic era; whence Matthew, the New Testament historian, traces the ancestry of Messias. As a pledge to Abram that his seed should possess the land of promise, and to intimate their religious distinction, we find the patriarch leaving Ur, entering Canaan, and there building an altar unto the Lord who appeared unto him. It would be easy to show you how God entered into covenant with Abraham, and renewed the same with the other ancestors of the Jewish people. How He at length conducted their posterity out of Egypt, established a system of religion amongst them, caused them to rear a tabernacle and then a temple for His worship, sanctuaries consecrated by a visible and luminous cloud, the symbol and token of His peculiar presence. How He raised up prophets for their instruction, and how the lively oracles of His word were preserved amongst them notwithstanding all their difficulties and dispersions. Brethren, compared with this favoured nation, all the other nations were without God. Darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people. Think of their religious peculiarities; think of the unusual and miraculous interpositions of the Most High so often made for their rescue and supply; think how subservient all the vicissitudes of surrounding nations were made to their well-being; and say, Did not Jehovah dwell in Zion, and was not her King in her? And then, when you remember, how oft they provoked the Most High, and lightly esteemed the rock of their salvation, will you not unite with Noah in the language of adoration, the ascription of praise, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem! Nor is this all. After the lapse of two thousand years, and in the fulness of time, God sent forth His Son as the spiritual Deliverer of a fallen world. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. God was manifest in the flesh. But to them is He sent first. And do you ask His genealogy? He is the Son of David, the Seed of Abraham, the Descendant of Shem. Yes; of him, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, and blessed forever. Blessed be the God of Shorn, who remembered us in our low estate, for His mercy endureth forever. Let the seed of Abraham, on whose nature He took hold, say so; for His mercy endureth for over.

3. It remains for us to notice the descendants of Japheth, and their enlargement. The prediction concerning Japheth is, as his name imports, enlargement or persuasion. Some expositors prefer the latter rendering. Then it may be said to have been accomplished in the accession of the Gentiles to the Church of God. It is an important fact, that Christianity has prevailed chiefly in the countries of Japheth. Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem. Shem laboured, and Japheth enters into his labours. But few of the descendants of Ham or Shem have as yet professed the Christian faith in its purity, whilst multitudes of Japheths posterity, in Asia, America, and Europe, bless the God of Shem, and enjoy His former distinction. But as the word, when meaning to persuade, usually has a bad sense; we incline to our version: God shall enlarge Japheth. And we ask you if history is not at agreement with this ancient prediction? Understand it as referring to multitude, territory, or dominion, Japheth is enlarged. It appears that Ham had four sons, Shem had five, and Japheth had seven. We cannot think of the Germanic and northern nations, without associating the idea of multitude: the invasion of the barbarian hordes! The northern hive has always been remarkable for its fecundity, sending forth swarms to colonize the more southern parts both of Europe and Asia. Consider the nations of Japhetic origin--Median, Grecian, Roman, Turkish, and many others, and ask whether multitude, if that be the meaning of the prediction, is not traceable in the history of Japheths posterity. We attach importance to the ideas of territory and influence--dominion. Possibly, in the early ages of the world, this prediction appeared obscure and its truth doubtful. Ham and Shem put on strength, and the former was subjected to the latter, when Canaan was gained for a possession. But where is Japheth? Where is his enlarged territory or extended sway? I said it might have appeared obscure, but, possibly, we have not well considered its meaning. God shall enlarge. Then the early, as well as later, history may yet accord with the prediction. It may, by subsequent enlargement, imply original straitness. God is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working, but we must sometimes wait to see! Well, since upon us the ends of the world are come, let us now look abroad. Where does Japheth dwell? Take the map in your hand, divide the hemisphere you tenant pretty nearly equally north and south: the northern half is Japheths home; yes, his alone. Then turn to the new world, the western hemisphere. The Aborigines seem to be of Shemitic origin; but the civilized parts, the United States, these acknowledge Japheth. I know not how to avoid anticipating the closing part of my subject. These tents of Shem are the dwellings of Japheth, and so are Australia and Canada and Newfoundland. Finally, the sacred text intimates one direction of Japheths enlargement. He shall dwell in the tents of Shorn.

Conclusion:--

1. From this subject we should learn to dread sin and to repose implicit confidence in the Word of God. It is a bitter thing to sin! See it in the history of nations, and let Britons not be high-minded, but fear.

2. And learn to trust in Gods Word. Look at these predictions. Think when they were uttered and how they have been fulfilled; and dare you think Moses an impostor, or can you suppose that Noah spake these words except as moved by the Holy Ghost?

3. Let us seek the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. He alone is fit to be King over all the earth. (B. S. Hollis.)

Blessed be the Lord God of Shem

Lessons

1. God by His prophets speaks good unto the pious, as well as evil to the wicked seed.

2. Noah and the prophets spake of some good to the Church, which themselves saw not. As here to Shems seed.

3. Prophecies of good unto the Church are best given and received with blessing unto God.

4. The promise of Jehovahs being the God of His Church is the great blessing (Psa_144:15).

5. Jehovah is more peculiarly the God of some men than of others, as here in Shem.

6. Where God is truly Lord of His people, all adversaries are made servants to them.

7. The Church shall in its appointed seasons triumph in God, and all enemies be laid under her foot. (G. Hughes, B. D.)

God shall enlarge Japheth.--

Lessons

1. God hath made known that some in the Church to the last times shall divide from it.

2. All divisions from the Church are not irreconcileable.

3. God Almighty alone is the cause of making up the breaches of such as divide from His Church.

4. Prophecy of good to any, as it is by promise, so it is brought about by prayer.

5. Blessing of posterity in abundance may be to such as divide from the Church.

6. Heart enlargement toward the ways of God in His promise and work.

7. Souls divided are only persuadable by God to have communion with His Church.

8. Gods persuasion upon souls is effectual to bring them to the Churchs tents.

9. The Gentiles succession of, and communion with the Jewish Church, is foretold of God.

10. A tent habitation hath God allotted to His Church below.

11. The worlds palaces will be changed for the Churchs tents when God works.

12. Subjection of all enemies is surely prophesied to them who join with the Church of God. (G. Hughes, B. D.)

God shall enlarge Japheth

There is in the original a play upon the word Japheth, which itself signifies enlargement. This enlargement is the most striking point in the history of Japheth, who is the progenitor of the inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and America, except the region between the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Euxine, the Caspian, and the mountains beyond the Tigris, which was the main seat of the Shemites. This expansive power refers 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. And though the moral and the spiritual were first developed among the Shemites, yet the Japhethites have proved themselves capable of rising to the heights of these lofty themes, and have elaborated that noble form of human speech which was adopted, in the providence of God, as best fitted to convey to mankind that farther development of Old Testament truth which is furnished in the New. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)

And he shall dwell, in the tents of Shem

We regard Japheth as the subject of this sentence; because, if God were its subject, the meaning would be substantially the same as that of the blessing of Shem, already given, and because this would intermingle the blessing of Shem with that of Japheth, without any important addition to our information. Whereas, when Japheth is the subject of the sentence, we learn that he shall dwell in the tents of Ahem, an altogether new proposition. This form of expression does not indicate a direct invasion and conquest of the land of Shem, which would not be in keeping with the blessing pronounced on him in the previous sentence. It rather implies that this dwelling together would be a benefit to Japheth, and no injury to Shorn. Accordingly we find that, when the Persians conquered the Babylonian empire, they restored the Jews to their native land. When Alexander the Great conquered the Persians, he gave protection to the Jews. And when the Romans subdued the Greek monarchy, they befriended the chosen nation, and allowed them a large measure of self-government. In their time came the Messiah, and instituted that new form of the Church of the Old Testament, which not only retained the best part of the ancient people of God, but extended itself over the whole of Europe, the chief seat of Japheth; went with him wherever he went, and is at this day, through Gods blessing, penetrating into the moral darkness of Ham as well as the remainder of Shem and Japheth himself. (Prof. J. G. Murphy.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 9:25. Cursed be Canaan — Canaan may be here put, by a well-known figure termed ellipsis, often used in Scripture, for the father of Canaan, the title given to Ham in Gen 9:22. And although Ham had more sons, he may here be described by his relation to Canaan, because in him the curse was more fixed and dreadful, reaching to the utter extirpation of his seed, while many of the other nations descended from Ham were, in after ages, blessed with the knowledge of the true God and the gospel of his Son. A servant of servants shall he (namely, the father of Canaan, Ham) be to his brethren — That is, in his posterity; whose condition in every age has remarkably coincided with the prediction. “The whole continent of Africa was peopled principally by the descendants of Ham, and for how many ages did the better parts of that country lie under the dominion of the Romans, and then of the Saracens, as they do now under that of the Turks! In what wickedness, ignorance, barbarity, slavery, misery, live most of the inhabitants! And of the poor negroes how many hundreds, nay thousands, have been annually sold and bought, like beasts in the market, and conveyed from one quarter of the world to do the work of beasts in another!” — Newton on the Prophecies. “There never has been a son of Ham who hath shaken a sceptre over the head of Japheth. Shem hath subdued Japheth, and Japheth subdued Shem, but Ham never subdued either.” — Mede. The curse, however, principally respects the posterity of Canaan, the devoted nations whom God destroyed before Israel, and is here recorded for the encouragement of the Israelites, who, it is probable, when Moses wrote these words, were about to march against them and to take possession of their country, about eight hundred years after the words were uttered by Noah. The Phœnicians and Carthaginians are also included in the curse denounced on Canaan; for they were descended from him, and were, at length, subdued with dreadful destruction by the Greeks and Romans, and made tributary to them both.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9:25 Then he cursed Canaan: Noah foresaw Ham’s actions as morally representative of Ham’s descendants through Canaan.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

He pronounceth as a Prophet the curse of God against all them that honor not their parents: for Ham and his posterity were accursed.

That is, a most vile slave.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Cursed be Canaan--This doom has been fulfilled in the destruction of the Canaanites--in the degradation of Egypt and the slavery of the Africans, the descendants of Ham.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 25. Cursed be Canaan] See on the preceding verses. In the 25th, 26th, and 27th verses, instead of Canaan simply, the Arabic version has Ham the father of Canaan; but this is acknowledged by none of the other versions, and seems to be merely a gloss.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. Cursed be Canaan It is asked in the first place, why Noah instead of pronouncing the curse upon his son, inflicts the severity of punishment, which that son had deserved, upon his innocent grandson; since it seems not consistent with the justice of God, to visit the crimes of parents upon their children? But the answer is well known; namely that God, although he pursues his course of judgments upon the sons and the grandchildren of the ungodly, yet in being angry with them, is not angry with the innocent, because even they themselves are found in fault. Wherefore there is no absurdity in the act of avenging the sins of the fathers upon their reprobate children; since, of necessity, all those whom God has deprived of his Spirit are subject to his wrath. But it is surprising that Noah should curse his grandson; and should pass his son Ham, the author of the crime, over in silence. The Jews imagine that the reason of this was to be traced to the special favor of God; and that since the Lord had bestowed on Ham so great an honor, the curse was transferred from him to his son. But the conjecture is futile. Certainly, to my mind, there is no doubt that the punishment was carried forward even to his posterity in order that the severity of it might be the more apparent; as if the Lord had openly proclaimed that the punishment of one man would not satisfy him but that he would attach the curse also to the posterity of the offender, so that it should extend through successive ages. In the meantime, Ham himself is so far from being exempt, that God, by involving his son with him, aggravates his own condemnation.

Another question is also proposed; namely, why among the many sons of Ham, God chooses one to be smitten? But let not our curiosity here indulge itself too freely; let us remember that the judgments of God are, not in vain, called “a great deep,” and that it would be a degrading thing for God, before whose tribunal we all must one day stand, to be subjected to our judgments, or rather to our foolish temerity. He chooses whom he sees good, that he may show forth in them an example of his grace and kindness; others he appoints to a different end, that they may be proofs of his anger and severity. Here, although the minds of men are blinded, let every one of us, conscious of his own infirmity, learn rather to ascribe praise to God’s justice, than plunge, with insane audacity, into the profound abyss. While God held the whole seed of Ham as obnoxious to the curse, he mentions the Canaanites by name, as those whom he would curse above all others. And hence we infer that this judgment proceeded from God, because it was proved by the event itself. What would certainly be the condition of the Canaanites, Noah could not know by human means. Wherefore in things obscure and hidden, the Spirit directed his tongue.

Another difficulty still remains: for since the Scripture teaches that God avenges the sins of men on the third and fourth generation, it seems to assign this limit to the wrath of God; but the vengeance of which mention is now made extends itself to the tenth generation. I answer, that these words of Scripture are not intended to prescribe a law to God, which he may not so far set aside, as to be at liberty to punish sins beyond four generations. The thing to be here observed is, the comparison instituted between punishment and grace; by which we are taught, that God, while he is a just avenger of crimes, is still more inclined to mercy. In the meantime, let his liberty remain unquestioned, to extend his vengeance as far as he pleases.

A servant of servants shall he be. This Hebraism signifies that Canaan shall be the last, even among servants: as if it had been said, ‘Not only shall his condition be servile, but worse than that of common servitude.’ Yet the thunder of this severe and dreadful prophecy seems weak and illusory, since the Canaanites excelled in strength and in riches, and were possessed of extensive dominion. Where then is this servitude? In the first place, I answer, that though God, in threatening men, does not immediately execute what he denounces, yet his threats are never weak and ineffectual. Secondly, that the judgments of God are not always exhibited before our eyes, nor apprehended by our carnal reason. The Canaanites, having shaken off the yoke of servitude, which was divinely imposed upon them, even proceeded to grasp at empire for themselves. But although they triumph for a time, yet in the sight of God their condition is not deemed free. Just as when the faithful are iniquitously oppressed, and tyrannically harassed by the wicked, their spiritual liberty is still not extinct in the sight of God. It behaves us then to be content with this proof of the divine judgment, that God promised the dominion of the land of Canaan to his servant Abraham, and at length devoted the Canaanites to destruction. But because the Pope so earnestly maintains that he sometimes utters prophecies, — as did even Caiaphas, (John 11:51,) — lest we should seem to refuse him everything, I do not deny that the title with which he adorns himself was dictated by the Spirit of God, ‘Let him be a servant of servants,’ in the same sense that Canaan was.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(25) Cursed be Canaan.—The prophecy of Noah takes the form of a poem, like Lamech’s boast in Genesis 4. In it Ham is passed over in silence, as though his unfilial conduct, recorded in Gen_9:22, made him unworthy of a blessing, while it was not so wicked as to bring on him a curse. The whole weight of Noah’s displeasure falls on Canaan, whose degraded position among the nations is thrice insisted upon.

A servant of servants. That is, the most abject of slaves. This was fulfilled in the conquest of Canaau by Joshua, but the race had nevertheless a great future before it. The Hittites were one of the foremost nations of antiquity, and the Sido-nians, Tyrians, and Phœnicians were such famous traders, that Canaanite is in our version translated merchant, without even a note in the margin (e.g., Pro_31:24). But the whole race was enslaved by one of the most terrible and degrading forms of idolatry, and as Shem’s blessing is religious, so possibly is Canaan’s curse. Lenormant (Manual of Ancient History of the East, 2:219) says of their religion, “No other people ever rivalled them in the mixture of bloodshed and debauchery with which they thought to honour the Deity.” He also quotes Creuzer, who says, “The Canaanite religion silenced all the best feelings of human nature, degraded men’s minds by a superstition alternately cruel and profligate, and we may seek in vain for any influence for good it could have exercised on the nation.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he said,.... Not in a drunken fit, as some profane persons would suggest, for he was awaked from his wine; nor in the heat of passion, but by inspiration, under a spirit of prophecy:

cursed be Canaan; or, "O cursed Canaan", or rather, "Canaan is", or "shall be cursed" (q); for the words are either a declaration of what was his case, or a prediction of what it should be. It may seem strange that Canaan should be cursed, and not Ham, who seems to he the only aggressor, by what is said in the context; hence one copy of the Septuagint, as Ainsworth observes, reads Ham, and the Arabic writers the father of Canaan; and so Saadiah Gaon supplies it, as Aben Ezra relates; and the same supplement is made by others (r): but as both were guilty, as appears from what has been observed on the former verses, and Canaan particularly was first in the transgression; it seems most wise and just that he should be expressly named, since hereby Ham is not excluded a share in the punishment of the crime he had a concern in, being punished in his son, his youngest son, who perhaps was his darling and favourite, and which must be very afflicting to him to hear of; and since Canaan only, and not any of the other sons of Ham were guilty, he, and not Ham by name, is cursed, lest it should be thought that the curse would fall upon Ham and all his posterity; whereas the curse descends on him, and very justly proceeds in the line of Canaan; and who is the rather mentioned, because he was the father of the accursed race of the Canaanites, whom God abhorred, and, for their wickedness, was about to drive out of their land, and give it to his people for an inheritance; and in order to which the Israelites were now upon the expedition, when Moses wrote this account, and which must animate them to it; for by this prediction they would see that they were an accursed people, and that they were to be their servants:

a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren; the posterities of Shem and Japheth, who stood in the relation of brethren to Canaan and his posterity; and to those he and his offspring were to become the most mean abject servants, as the phrase implies: this character agrees with the name of Canaan, which may be derived from "to depress", "humble", and "make mean and abject".

(q) "maledictus erit Cenahan", Junius & Tremellius. (r) So some in Vatablus.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Cursed be Chanaan. The curses, as well as the blessings, of the patriarchs were prophetical: and this in particular is here recorded by Moses, for the children of Israel, who were to possess the land of Chanaan. But why should Chanaan be cursed for his father’s fault? The Hebrews answer, that he, being then a boy, was the first that saw his grandfather’s nakedness, and told his father Cham of it; and joined with him in laughing at it: which drew upon him, rather than the rest of the children of Cham, this prophetical curse. (Challoner) --- Theodoret, q. 57. The children of Sem executed this sentence, in exterminating many of the Chanaanites under Josue. (Worthington) --- They perished for their own wickedness, which God foresaw, and revealed to Noe. Cham was severely punished by this denunciation of his children’s misery. See Milton, xi. 754. xii. 27; Deuteronomy ix. 4. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

And he said, not from the passion of revenge, but by Divine inspiration, and the Spirit of prophecy,

Cursed be Canaan; hateful to God, abhorred by men, miserable in his person and posterity.

Quest. Seeing Ham committed the crime, why is the curse inflicted upon his son Canaan?

Answ.

1. When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the curse, but rather more deeply plunged into it, whilst he is pronounced accursed, not only in his person, (which is manifestly supposed by his commission of that sin for which the curse was inflicted), but also in his posterity, which doubtless was a great aggravation of his grief; as on the contrary Joseph is said to be blessed when his children are blessed, Gen 48:15-16.

2. It seems therefore very probable from these words, and the Hebrew doctors and others affirm it, that Canaan did partake with his father in the sin, yea, that he was the first discoverer of his father’s shame.

3. Canaan is particularly mentioned by the Spirit of prophecy, in regard of the future extirpation of that people; and this is here remembered for the encouragement of the Israelites, who were now in their expedition against them.

4. This may be an ellipsis, or defect of the word father; for such relative words are ofttimes omitted and understood in Scripture, as Mat 4:21, James of Zebedee, for the son of Zebedee; Joh 19:25, Mary of Cleopas, for the wife of Cleopas; Act 7:16, Emmor of Sychem, for the father of Sychem, as our English translation rightly supplies it from Gen 33:19. Thus Goliath is put for Goliath’s brother, as is evident by comparing 2Sa 21:19, with 1Ch 20:5. So here Canaan may be put for the father of Canaan, as the Arabic translation hath it, that is, Ham, as the Seventy here render it. And though Ham had more sons, yet he may be here described by his relation to Canaan, because in him the curse was more fixed and dreadful, reaching to his utter extirpation, whilst the rest of Ham’s posterity in after-ages were blessed with the saving knowledge of the gospel.

A servant of servants, i.e. the vilest and worst of servants; as vanity of vanities is the greatest vanity, Ecc 1:2; and great wickedness, Hos 10:15, is in the Hebrew wickedness of wickedness; and King of kings is put for the chief of kings.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. And he said — Render the whole prophecy thus:

Cursed be Canaan,

A servant of servants let him be unto his brethren.

And he said:

Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem;

And let Canaan be a servant unto them.

Let God enlarge Japheth,

And let him dwell in the tents of Shem,

And let Canaan be a servant unto them.

The futures in this passage have an imperative sense, the prediction taking the form of blessing and imprecation. It will be noted, that in reference to both Shem and Japheth the plural pronoun them is used, showing that each patriarch’s name is used in a collective sense, embracing his posterity. The preposition and suffix למוis incorrectly rendered his in our version, although the margin gives the real meaning. Comp. Ges., Gr., §103, 2, note. There is a play upon words, after the favourite method of the Old Testament writers and speakers, which cannot be well shown in translation. Japheth signifies enlargement, and Noah uses, in the blessing, the verb from which the name is derived. The predictions touched the individuals addressed only as they were interested in their posterity. The sin of Ham and the etymology of the names, furnish starting points for prophecies of world-wide interest. Noah is now, for the first time, made to understand the prophetic significance of the names which, under divine guidance, he had given his children, as Lamech, his father, saw that Noah would be Noah, or Rest, to mankind. The filial piety of Shem and Japheth was the means by which the revealing Spirit lifted the curtain of the future, and showed Noah how the knowledge of Jehovah should make the children of Shem illustrious (שׁם, name, a great name), how the descendants of Japheth should be spread over vast continents yet unknown, while the sensual impiety of Ham typified the degradation of the children of Canaan, his son, who should be enslaved or exterminated by the Shemites, as the reward of their dreadful iniquities. But this foresight had no causative power, and in no sense necessitated the sin or holiness of those far-off generations; for necessary sin or holiness is an impossibility. Their actions were foreseen, not foreordained.

Cursed be Canaan — Not Ham, as might be expected. The prediction begins with the youngest, as his sin was its immediate cause, (compare the order in Gen_3:14-16,) and as certainly would have been the case had Noah been left to vent a natural ebullition of wrath upon his unnatural son. The curse lights only upon the descendants of Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, and father of the nations who dwelt in Canaan in the time of Abraham, and down to the era of its conquest by Joshua. It is, then, pure assumption to apply the prediction to the African families who descended from the other children of Ham. Shem and Japheth are mentioned by name, but the curse of Ham is expressly limited to Canaan. It is true that in modern times slavery has mostly fallen to the African race, but it is only in extremely modern times; and this slavery is not to be compared in universality or in severity to that which prevailed in ancient times and involved the children of Shem and Japheth as much as those of Ham. Slavery was the normal condition of the masses in the Greek and Roman world. It was a fundamental characteristic of all ancient society. Aristotle, the greatest political philosopher of antiquity, lays it down as an indispensable condition of civilization. (Polit., i, cap. 3, 6.) Greeks enslaved Greeks, and Roman fathers, at the time of Christ, enslaved their own children.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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. (Gen_4:11) Colenso notices that all the curses belong to the Jehovistic writer; but vide Gen_49:6, Gen_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" (vide Gesenius, Ie. "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); paiv oijkeJthv (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, (Jos_9:23) those that remained being subsequently reduced by Solomon; (1Ki_9:20, 1Ki_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).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A servant of servants - That is, the meanest and most despicable servant shall he be, even to his brethren. Those who by birth were his equals, should by conquest be his lords. This certainly points at the victories obtained by Israel over the Canaanites, by which they were all either put to the sword, or put under tribute. Josh. ix, 23; Jude i, 28, 30,

33, 35, which happened not 'till about eight hundred years after this. God often visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, especially when the children inherit the fathers wicked dispositions, and imitate the father's wicked practices.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Cursed

See note subdiv. 5-7, (See Scofield "Gen 9:1").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ארור כנען CURSED BE CANAAN — You have brought it about that I cannot beget a fourth son to serve me; cursed, therefore, be your fourth son (see Chap. 10:6) to serve under the descendants of these elder ones upon whom the duty of serving me will devolve from now on. Why did Ham maltreat him in this manner? He said to his brothers, “Adam Harishon had two sons and one killed the other in order that he might possess the whole world(Genesis Rabbah 36:7): our father already has three sons, and he wishes to have yet another “.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ויאמר ארור כנען, he cursed Canaan by invoking his prophetic vision, so that his curse would take lasting effect. All he patriarchs were extremely careful not to marry women descended from these cursed tribes. Avraham had already warned Eliezer his servant, against taking a wife from these tribes for Yitzchok, and so had Yitzchok as well as Rivkah expressed their opposition to such liaisons.

עבד עבדים, even his brothers would be slaves too; but he, Canaan, would be a slave even to them.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.