{May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem: and let Canaan be his servant.} — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

{May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem: and let Canaan be his servant.}¹

Dilatet Deus Iaphet, et habitet in tabernaculis Sem: sitque Chanaan servus eius.

HAEC verba continent benedictionem Iaphet, amplam quidem illam, verum benedictione Sem multo inferiorem. Alluditur autem ad nomen Iaphet, quod significat latitudinem. Augustinus legit quodam loco, Latificet. Caietanus [et Eugubinus]…

These words contain the blessing of Iaphet — ample indeed, but much inferior to the blessing of Sem. And there is an allusion to the name Iaphet, which signifies breadth. Augustine reads in one place, “May He make broad [Latificet].” Cajetan [and Eugubinus]…²

…et Eugubinus aiunt verbum Hebraeum etiam significare, condecoret seu venustum faciat. Verum significatio dilatandi seu extendendi maxime propria eius vocis est, tum hoc loco tum alibi in sacris literis. Dilatatio autem Iaphet dupliciter intelligitur: et quantum ad prolem, quod numerosissima eius progenies et posteritas esset futura; et quantum ad loca, id est, varias terrae regiones, quod eius posteri multas et varias terrae plagas peragraturi et habitaturi essent, futurique multarum gentium atque regnorum conditores.

…and Eugubinus say that the Hebrew word also signifies “may He adorn” or “make beautiful.” But the signification of enlarging or extending is most proper to that word, both here and elsewhere in the sacred letters. And the enlargement of Iaphet is understood in two ways: both as to offspring (that his progeny and posterity would be most numerous), and as to places — that is, the various regions of the earth — because his posterity would traverse and inhabit many and various tracts of the earth, and would be the founders of many nations and kingdoms.³

SED illud, habitet in tabernaculis Sem, praecipuam requirit explanationem. Verbum enim illud, habitet, ambiguam habet constructionem et connexionem: potest enim iungi cum nomine Dei et cum nomine Iaphet. Si referatur ad Deum, erit haec sententia: Etsi Deus amplissime dilataturus est posteritatem Iaphet, ipse tamen non apud posteros Iaphet, sed apud solius posteros Sem habitaturus est; namque posteri Iaphet falsos deos coluerunt, at posteri Sem (non quidem omnes, sed qui ex eo per Heber, Abraham, Isaac et Iacob proseminati sunt) veri Dei fidem et cultum retinuerunt; quamobrem dicitur Deus habitaturus in eorum tabernaculis, id est, externo et publico cultu ab eis colendus: licet etiam in tabernaculo Mosis et in templo Salomonis habitasse Deum legamus. Ad extremum vero Deus Verbum carnem ex stirpe Sem accepit, in qua Deitas per hypostaticam unionem mirabiliter habitavit. Hanc interpretationem maxime probat Theodoretus, nec ea displicet Lyrano, Burgensi et Tostato; quam item sequitur paraphrasis Chaldaica sic habens hoc loco: Et habitet Divinitas eius in tabernaculis Sem. Quanquam Chaldaicum vocabulum quietem proprie significat, quo vocabulo Hebraei praesentiam Divinitatis (quae olim in Sanctuario super arcam foederis declarabatur) appellant; ad quod videtur hic alludi, sicut etiam apud David: Haec requies mea in saeculum saeculi, hic habitabo, quoniam elegi eam.

But that phrase, “and may he dwell in the tents of Sem,” requires a special explanation. For that verb, “dwell,” has an ambiguous construction and connection: for it can be joined with the name of God and with the name of Iaphet. If it be referred to God, this will be the sense: Although God will most amply enlarge the posterity of Iaphet, yet He Himself will dwell not among the posterity of Iaphet, but among the posterity of Sem alone; for the posterity of Iaphet worshipped false gods, but the posterity of Sem (not indeed all, but those sown from him through Heber, Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob) retained the faith and worship of the true God; wherefore God is said to be about to dwell in their tents — that is, to be worshipped by them with external and public worship; although we read that God dwelt also in the tabernacle of Moses and in the temple of Solomon. But at last God the Word took flesh from the stock of Sem, in which the Deity by the hypostatic union wonderfully dwelt. This interpretation Theodoret especially approves, nor does it displease Lyra, Burgos, and Tostatus; which the Chaldaic paraphrase likewise follows, having thus in this place: “And may His Divinity dwell in the tents of Sem.” Although the Chaldaic word properly signifies ‘rest,’ by which word the Hebrews call the presence of the Divinity (which of old was declared in the Sanctuary over the ark of the covenant); to which there seems to be an allusion here, as also in David: “This is my rest forever and ever, here will I dwell, for I have chosen it.”⁴

VERUM multo aptius illud verbum habitet iungitur cum nomine Iaphet, ut significetur non solum posteritatem Iaphet mirandum in modum dilatatum iri, sed eam in tabernaculis (sive, ut habent Septuaginta, in domibus) Sem habitaturam esse. Quod autem illud verbum habitet referri debeat ad Iaphet, bene probat Caietanus ex eo quod sequitur, Sitque Chanaan servus eius: nam illud pronomen eius vel refertur ad Deum, vel ad Sem, vel ad Iaphet. Non ad Deum, quia redderet falsam sententiam, non enim Chananaei servi Dei fuerunt, nisi forte naturali servitute, quae tamen communis est omnium; nec referri potest ad Sem, quia iam supra dictum fuerat Chanaan futurum servum ipsius Sem, nec ratio erat ulla cur idem mox repeteretur: ergo referri debet ad Iaphet. Quocirca illud etiam habitet procul dubio ad Iaphet referendum est.

But much more aptly is that verb “dwell” joined with the name of Iaphet, so that it is signified not only that the posterity of Iaphet will be enlarged in a wonderful manner, but that it will dwell in the tents (or, as the Septuagint has, in the houses) of Sem. And that that verb “dwell” ought to be referred to Iaphet, Cajetan well proves from what follows, “And let Chanaan be his servant”: for that pronoun “his” is referred either to God, or to Sem, or to Iaphet. Not to God, because it would yield a false sense, for the Canaanites were not servants of God, except perhaps by the natural servitude which, however, is common to all; nor can it be referred to Sem, because it had already been said above that Chanaan would be the servant of Sem himself, and there was no reason why the same should be at once repeated: therefore it must be referred to Iaphet. Wherefore that “dwell” too must without doubt be referred to Iaphet.⁵

SED quid sibi vult, Iaphet esse habitaturum in tabernaculis Sem? Quinque modis id potest intelligi. Primo, ut significetur usque adeo multiplicatum iri posteros Iaphet, ut, eos propriis non capientibus tabernaculis, necesse futurum sit recipi in tabernacula posterorum [Sem]…

But what does it mean, that Iaphet will dwell in the tents of Sem? It can be understood in five ways. First, that it is signified that the posterity of Iaphet will be so multiplied that, their own tents not holding them, it will be necessary for them to be received into the tents of the posterity [of Sem]…⁶

…Sem, id est, ut in regionibus quas illi colent ipsi cum illis permixti habitaturi sint. Deinde significari potest posteros Iaphet, qui futuri erant Gentiles, copulatum iri foedere amicitiae et communicatione privilegiorum cum Iudaeis qui futuri erant posteri Sem; id quod de Lacedaemoniis et Romanis in priori Machabaeorum volumine proditum est, quos ex stirpe Iaphet oriundos fuisse paulo infra ostendemus. Illud quoque ex illis verbis potest elici, fore aliquando tempus cum posteri Iaphet, id est Gentiles, eiecturi essent propriis sedibus Iudaeos genus trahentes ex Sem: quod non semel esse factum ex sacris historiis notum est.

…of Sem — that is, that in the regions which they [the posterity of Sem] will inhabit, they [the posterity of Iaphet] will dwell mingled with them. Next, it can be signified that the posterity of Iaphet, who would be Gentiles, would be joined by a covenant of friendship and a sharing of privileges with the Jews who would be the posterity of Sem; which is recorded of the Lacedaemonians and the Romans in the former book of the Maccabees — whom we shall show a little below to have been sprung from the stock of Iaphet. This too can be elicited from those words: that there would be a time when the posterity of Iaphet, that is the Gentiles, would eject from their own seats the Jews drawing their race from Sem — which is known from the sacred histories to have happened more than once.⁷

POSTREMO ex illis ipsis verbis duplex alia exprimitur sententia. Altera, significari unionem futuram in Christo Gentilium et Iudaeorum, qui, cum antea non solum diiuncti sed etiam discordes atque inimici essent, et tanquam parietes ingenti maceria interiecta longissime dissiti, per lapidem tamen angularem Christum dominum invicem copulati sunt. Ipse est pax nostra, inquit Paulus de Christo scribens ad Ephesios, qui fecit utraque unum, et medium parietem maceriae solvens, inimicitias in carne sua, legem mandatorum decretis evacuans, ut duos condat in semetipso in unum hominem, faciens pacem, et reconcilians ambos in uno corpore Deo per Crucem, interficiens inimicitias in semetipso. Itaque Gentilis, qui erat velut foliis oleaster amarus, insitus est per Christum in pinguem olivam, socius radicis et pinguedinis eius factus. Et hac ratione impletum est illud Esaiae vaticinium: Habitabit lupus cum agno, et pardus cum haedo accubabit; vitulus et leo et ovis simul morabuntur, et puer parvulus minabit eos. Vitulus et ursus pascentur, simul requiescent catuli eorum, et leo quasi bos comedet paleas. Ergo Iaphet habitaturum in tabernaculis Sem, prophetia est aenigmatica locutione operta, de Gentibus quae futurae participes erant bonorum quae Iudaei a Deo, potissimum autem per Messiam, accepturi erant.

Lastly, from those very words a twofold other sense is expressed. The one, that there is signified the future union in Christ of Gentiles and Jews, who, although before they were not only disjoined but even discordant and hostile, and as it were walls set very far apart with a huge wall interposed, were nevertheless joined to each other through the corner-stone, Christ the Lord. “He is our peace,” says Paul, writing of Christ to the Ephesians, “who has made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh, evacuating the law of commandments by decrees, that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace, and reconciling both in one body to God by the Cross, slaying the enmities in himself.” And so the Gentile, who was like a wild olive bitter in its leaves, was grafted through Christ into the rich olive, made a partaker of its root and fatness. And by this means was fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the lion and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them. The calf and the bear shall feed, their young ones shall rest together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.” Therefore that Iaphet will dwell in the tents of Sem is a prophecy, veiled in enigmatic speech, of the Gentiles, who were to be future partakers of the goods which the Jews were to receive from God, but chiefly through the Messiah.⁸

ALTERA sententia est, posteros Iaphet habitaturos in tabernaculis posterorum Sem, inde ipsis eiectis. Posteri enim Sem, ut non semel diximus, fuerunt Hebraei: per eorum tabernacula intelligere oportet veri Dei fidem et cultum et sacrarum literarum eloquia, denique promissa bona per Messiam ipsis praestanda. In haec tabernacula intrarunt Gentes ad Christum conversae, eaque perdiderunt Iudaei a Christo alienati. Audi B. Hieronymum: De Sem, inquit, Hebraei, de Iaphet populus Gentium nascitur: quid igitur? lata est multitudo credentium, a latitudine qua Iaphet dicitur nomen invenit. Quod autem subditur, Et habitet in tabernaculis Sem, de nobis prophetatur, qui in eruditione et scientia Scripturarum, eiecto Israel, versamur.

The other sense is, that the posterity of Iaphet would dwell in the tents of the posterity of Sem, they themselves being thence ejected. For the posterity of Sem, as we have said more than once, were the Hebrews: by their tents one must understand the faith and worship of the true God, and the eloquences of the sacred letters, and finally the promised goods to be furnished to them through the Messiah. Into these tents the Gentiles converted to Christ entered, and them the Jews, alienated from Christ, lost. Hear St. Jerome: “From Sem,” he says, “the Hebrews are born, from Iaphet the people of the Gentiles: what, then? the multitude of believers is broad — from the breadth by which Iaphet is named it found its name. And what is subjoined, ‘And may he dwell in the tents of Sem,’ is prophesied of us, who are engaged in the erudition and knowledge of the Scriptures, Israel being cast out.”⁹

VERUM diserte admodum et erudite locum hunc tractavit Rupertus. Tabernacula Sem, ait ille, in quibus habitaturus esse dicitur Iaphet, privilegia sunt Iudaeorum his verbis a Paulo numerata: Quorum est adoptio filiorum, et gloria, et testamentum, et legislatio, et obsequium et promissa, et Patres ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus. In his tabernaculis longo tempore solus habitavit Iudaicus populus, Gentibus extra positis. Eratis [enim]…

But very plainly and learnedly Rupert treated this place. “The tents of Sem,” he says, “in which Iaphet is said to be about to dwell, are the privileges of the Jews enumerated by Paul in these words: ‘Whose is the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenant, and the legislation, and the service [of God], and the promises, and the Fathers, from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed.’ In these tents the Jewish people alone dwelt for a long time, the Gentiles being placed outside. For you were [once]…”¹⁰

…enim aliquando (ait Paulus scribens Gentibus ad Christum conversis) sine Christo, alienati a conversatione Israel, hospites testamentorum, promissionis spem non habentes, et sine Deo in hoc mundo. Haec enim omnia unius Hebraicae linguae clausura tenebat: quae, cum confusio seu divisio linguarum facta est, sola remansit in familia Heber, unde et Hebraica nominata est. Atque haec fuere tabernacula Sem et posterorum eius, non quidem omnium, sed qui ex eo tantum per Heber, Abraham et Iacob genus duxerunt. Quomodo autem in hisce tabernaculis habitaverint posteri Iaphet, breviter indicandum est. De Iaphet nati sunt Graeci et Latini: namque eius filii septem numerantur a Mose: primus Gomer, a quo Galatae fuerunt oriundi; secundus Magog, ex quo Scythae; tertius Madai, unde Medi; quartus Iavan, a quo Iones qui et Graeci; quintus Thubal, unde Italorum et Hispanorum origo; sextus Mosoch, et hinc Cappadoces (apud quos etiam urbs quaedam inde Mazecha dicta est); septimus Thiras, a quo Thraces. In his porro atque in cunctis fere gentibus Graeca et Latina lingua principatum obtinuerunt: illa propter sapientiam et eloquentiam Graecorum, haec propter potentiam Romanorum; per quas linguas tabernacula Sem patefacta sunt cunctis gentibus ad inhabitandum: per illas enim linguas, translatis ex Hebraeo divinis eloquiis, scripturarum scientiam et veri Dei notitiam Gentes perceperunt. Et primo quidem Iudaei, quibus illa tabernacula aedificata fuerant, in ea introierunt, necnon et aliqui Gentilium ex Cham vel ex Sem originem ducentium: sed posteri tamen Iaphet, a quibus Europa possessa est, in illis tabernaculis habitando praevaluerunt.

…for you were once (says Paul, writing to the Gentiles converted to Christ) without Christ, alienated from the conversation of Israel, strangers to the covenants, not having the hope of the promise, and without God in this world. For all these things the enclosure of the one Hebrew language held: which, when the confusion or division of tongues was made, alone remained in the family of Heber, whence it was named Hebrew. And these were the tents of Sem and his posterity — not indeed of all, but of those who drew their race from him only through Heber, Abraham, and Iacob. But how the posterity of Iaphet dwelt in these tents must be briefly indicated. From Iaphet were born the Greeks and Latins: for his sons are numbered seven by Moses — the first Gomer, from whom the Galatians were sprung; the second Magog, from whom the Scythians; the third Madai, whence the Medes; the fourth Iavan, from whom the Ionians, who are also the Greeks; the fifth Thubal, whence the origin of the Italians and Spaniards; the sixth Mosoch, and hence the Cappadocians (among whom too a certain city was thence called Mazecha); the seventh Thiras, from whom the Thracians. And in these, and in almost all nations, the Greek and Latin tongue obtained the primacy: the former on account of the wisdom and eloquence of the Greeks, the latter on account of the power of the Romans; by which tongues the tents of Sem were opened to all nations to inhabit — for through those tongues, the divine eloquences being translated from the Hebrew, the Gentiles received the knowledge of the scriptures and the notice of the true God. And first indeed the Jews, for whom those tents had been built, entered into them, and also some of the Gentiles drawing their origin from Cham or from Sem; but the posterity of Iaphet, by whom Europe was possessed, prevailed in dwelling in those tents.¹¹

NON decet hinc abire nos ad alia, intactam omnino praetereuntes Allegoricam huius historiae tractationem, quam Patres copiose, pie ac docte persecuti sunt. Noë illustrem gessisse multis in rebus imaginem Christi domini nostri, alias dictum est in his nostris Commentariis. Similitudine autem vineae quam Noë plantavit significari veterem illam Synagogam variis Scripturae locis testatum est: Vineam de Aegypto transtulisti, inquit David, eiecisti Gentes et plantasti eam; dux itineris fuisti in conspectu eius, plantasti radices eius et implevit terram. Quae quidem vinea a primo egregia, decora et praeclara fuit, postea conversa est in amaritudinem vitis alienae, pro expectatis uvis reddens labruscas. Haec tandem, a quo plantata fuerat, eum amaro mortis poculo potavit, et consummata amaritudine inebriavit, ita ut dormiret somno mortis, nudatus et suorum irrisioni, ludibrio et contemptui expositus. Christus enim a populo Iudaico — quem ut Deus innumerabilibus beneficiis antea cumulaverat, et factus homo ad eum redimendum et salvandum venerat — ignominiosa et atroci morte damnatus et peremptus est. Nuditas Noë et verenda eius significant infirmitates Christi, maxime demonstratas in Cruce et morte eius, quas impii vt pudendas et probrosas irrident et contemnunt.

It is not fitting for us to pass hence to other things, leaving altogether untouched the Allegorical treatment of this history, which the Fathers have pursued copiously, piously, and learnedly. That Noah bore in many things an illustrious image of Christ our Lord, has been said elsewhere in these our Commentaries. And that by the likeness of the vine which Noah planted is signified that old Synagogue is attested in various places of Scripture: “Thou hast brought a vineyard out of Egypt,” says David, “thou hast cast out the Gentiles and planted it; thou wast the guide of its journey in its sight, thou didst plant its roots, and it filled the earth.” And this vine, at first excellent, comely, and famous, was afterward turned into the bitterness of a strange vine, rendering wild grapes instead of the expected grapes. This [vine] at last gave to drink the bitter cup of death to Him by whom it had been planted, and with consummated bitterness made Him drunk, so that He slept the sleep of death, stripped and exposed to the mockery, scorn, and contempt of His own. For Christ, by the Jewish people — whom as God He had before heaped with innumerable benefits, and, made man, had come to redeem and save — was condemned and slain by an ignominious and atrocious death. The nakedness of Noah and his shameful parts signify the infirmities of Christ, most demonstrated in His Cross and death, which the impious mock and despise as shameful and disgraceful.¹²

TRES filii Noë, tria sunt genera hominum in Ecclesia Christi: Haeretici ac reprobi Catholici; et e contrario Electi, quorum alii praelati sunt, alii vero subditi: praeter haec tria hominum genera non est invenire aliud in his qui Christiano nomine censentur. Et duo quidem posteriora genera salva sunt in Ecclesia, tertium omnino perit. Unde [legitur]…

The three sons of Noah are three kinds of men in the Church of Christ: Heretics and reprobate Catholics; and on the contrary the Elect, of whom some are prelates, some are subjects: besides these three kinds of men one cannot find another among those who are counted by the Christian name. And the two latter kinds are saved in the Church, the third perishes utterly. Whence [it is read]…¹³

…legitur Draco deiectus de caelo traxisse ad se tertiam partem stellarum, et ad sonitum cantumque tubae Angelicae tertiam partem terrae interiisse. Et quidem Cham figura fuit Haereticorum: nam Cham interpretatur calidus, id est, impatiens semperque fervens ad rixas atque contentiosus, qui patris nuditatem irridet et evulgat: tales sunt Haeretici, qui propter humilitatem et infirmitatem Christi negant eum esse verum Deum, publicantes et iactantes quae ad humilitatem Christi pertinent, multa vero quae ad declarandam divinitatis eius maiestatem faciunt tacentes, aut perversa interpretatione depravantes. Isti sunt contentiosi, litigiosi, ferventes in maledicendo et persequendo; sed velint nolint, servi sunt servorum Dei: illorum enim augendae et consummandae gloriae serviunt, et exornandis ac perficiendis coronis famulantur. Nec in eos non apte quadrat quod Cham non in se ipso sed in filio suo Chanaan maledictus est: nam dum aliquando Haereticorum poena in futurum saeculum reservatur, quasi non in semetipsis sed in posteris suis puniuntur; quaelibet enim secta Haereticorum, quamvis a primo visa sit potens et gloriosa, et ad tempus prosperos habens processus, paulatim tamen in posteris suis labascit et deficit, et cum dedecore atque execratione hominum evanescit.

…it is read that the Dragon, cast down from heaven, drew to himself the third part of the stars, and that at the sound and song of the Angelic trumpet the third part of the earth perished. And Cham indeed was a figure of Heretics: for Cham is interpreted ‘hot’ — that is, impatient and ever boiling for quarrels and contentious — who mocks and divulges his father's nakedness: such are the Heretics, who, on account of the humility and infirmity of Christ, deny Him to be true God, publishing and bandying about what pertains to the humility of Christ, but keeping silent, or by a perverse interpretation depraving, the many things which serve to declare the majesty of His divinity. These are contentious, litigious, boiling in cursing and persecuting; but, willing or unwilling, they are servants of the servants of God: for they serve the increasing and consummating of their [the saints'] glory, and minister to the adorning and perfecting of their crowns. Nor does it not aptly fit them, that Cham was cursed not in himself but in his son Chanaan: for, since the penalty of Heretics is sometimes reserved for the future age, they are as it were punished not in themselves but in their posterity; for any sect of Heretics whatever, although at first it seemed powerful and glorious, and for a time had prosperous successes, nevertheless gradually totters and fails in its posterity, and vanishes with the disgrace and execration of men.¹⁴

E CONTRARIO autem Sem et Iaphet, id est electi, infirmitates Christi (vt quas ille nulla necessitate sed summa voluntate atque charitate nostrae salutis causa susceperat) summa pietate venerantur, scientes quod infirmum et stultum est Dei, sapientius et fortius esse omnibus hominibus. Aversi autem nuditatem Noë proprio pallio tegere est, in Christi nece aversari quidem immane facinus Iudaeorum, sed ipsas Domini passiones venerando sacramentorum ordine operire, grate recolentes, pie venerantes, studiose imitantes. Et Sem quidem, significans nominatum et inclytum, figura est Praelatorum in Ecclesia Christi; Iaphet autem, significans latitudinem, figuram habet subditorum, quorum maximus est in Ecclesia Christi numerus. Verum satis fuerit hoc attigisse, cetera meditationi lectoris relinquentes.

But on the contrary Sem and Iaphet — that is, the elect — venerate with the highest piety the infirmities of Christ (which He had taken on by no necessity, but by the highest will and charity for the cause of our salvation), knowing that what is weak and foolish of God is wiser and stronger than all men. And, turned away, to cover the nakedness of Noah with their own cloak is, in the slaying of Christ, indeed to turn away from the monstrous deed of the Jews, but to cover the very Passions of the Lord by venerating them with the order of the sacraments — gratefully recalling, piously venerating, studiously imitating. And Sem, signifying ‘named and renowned,’ is a figure of the Prelates in the Church of Christ; but Iaphet, signifying ‘breadth,’ has the figure of the subjects, of whom the number is greatest in the Church of Christ. But it will be enough to have touched on this, leaving the rest to the meditation of the reader.¹⁵

Translator’s notes

Gen 9:27 (lemma). Margin: v. 27. ↩
§187. Japheth's blessing (lesser than Shem's); ‘Iaphet’ = breadth/enlargement (Augustine ‘Latificet’). Margin: Augustine, City of God bk. 16. Continues on p. 387. ↩
§187 (cont.). The twofold enlargement of Japheth: in offspring and in lands (founders of many nations). Margins: Cajetan; Eugubinus. ↩
§188. ‘Dwell in the tents of Shem’ — if referred to God: God dwells among Shem's line (the true faith surviving via Heber–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob; ultimately the Word incarnate from Shem's stock); Theodoret, Lyra, Burgos, Tostatus; the Chaldee ‘His Divinity shall dwell’ (the Shekinah). Margins: 3 Kings 8; Lyra; Burgos; Tostatus; the Chaldaic Paraphrase; Ps. 131. ↩
§189. Better: ‘dwell’ refers to Japheth (his posterity dwelling in Shem's tents/houses); Cajetan proves it from ‘let Canaan be his servant’ — ‘his’ must = Japheth (not God, not Shem). ↩
§190. Five meanings of ‘Japheth dwelling in Shem's tents’ — the first: Japheth's posterity so multiplied they overflow into Shem's regions. Continues on p. 388. ↩
§190 (cont.). The 2nd and 3rd senses: the Gentiles (Japheth) allied with the Jews (Shem) — like the Spartans and Romans of Maccabees, descended from Japheth; and the Gentiles one day ejecting the Jews. ↩
§191. The 4th sense: the union of Gentiles and Jews in Christ — the middle wall broken (Eph 2), the wild olive grafted in (Rom 11), the wolf with the lamb (Isaiah 11). Margins: Eph. 2; Rom. 11; Isaiah 11. ↩
§192. The 5th sense: Japheth's posterity dwelling in Shem's tents, the Jews ejected — the tents = the true faith/Scriptures/Messianic promises, entered by the converted Gentiles (Jerome). Margin: Jerome, On the Hebrew Traditions in Genesis. ↩
§193. Rupert: the ‘tents of Shem’ = the Jews' privileges (Rom 9 — adoption, glory, covenants, law, the Fathers, Christ), long held by the Jews alone. Margins: Rupert, Commentaries on Genesis bk. 4, ch. 39; Rom. 9; Eph. 2. Continues on p. 389. ↩
§193 (cont.). Rupert: Israel held the privileges alone (Eph 2; the Hebrew tongue kept in Heber's line); how Japheth's line entered — the Greeks and Latins descend from Japheth (his seven sons → Galatians, Scythians, Medes, Greeks, Italians/Spaniards, Cappadocians, Thracians); Greek and Latin (by wisdom and Roman power) opened the tents to all via the translated Scriptures; Japheth's posterity (who hold Europe) prevailed. Margins: Gen. 11; Gen. 10. ↩
§194. The allegory: Noah an image of Christ; the vine = the old Synagogue (Ps 79) which gave Christ the bitter cup of death; his ‘drunkenness’ and nakedness = Christ's infirmities on the Cross, mocked by the impious. Margins: “Allegorical exposition”; Augustine, City of God 16.2; Rupert bk. 4, ch. 38; Ps. 79; Isaiah 5; Matt. 21; Jer. 2; Apoc. 12 & 8. ↩
§195. The three sons = three kinds in the Church (heretics & reprobate Catholics; the elect — prelates and subjects). Continues on p. 390. ↩
§195 (cont.). Cham = the heretics (‘hot,’ contentious, denying Christ's divinity from His humility); ‘servants of the servants of God’ (they serve the saints' glory); cursed ‘in posterity’ — each heresy decays. Margins: 1 Cor. 1(?); Apoc. 12. ↩
§196. Conversely Shem and Japheth (the elect) reverence Christ's infirmities; covering Noah's nakedness = venerating the Passion through the sacraments; Shem (‘renowned’) = prelates, Japheth (‘breadth’) = the subjects (the greater number). Margin: 1 Cor. 1. ↩