There is a difference of opinion regarding the determination of the subject in the second clause of the verse: "and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem." According to a very ancient interpretation, Elohim is to be supplied as such; from which the following sense would be obtained: "God shall indeed enlarge and prosper Japheth, but He shall dwell in the tents of Shem." [Pg 41] The inferior blessing of Japheth would thus be contrasted with the superior one of Shem, among whose posterity God should, by His gracious presence, glorify Himself,--first in the tabernacle, then in the temple, and lastly, should, in the highest sense, dwell by the incarnation of His Son. Thus _Onkelos_: "God shall extend Japheth, and His Shechinah shall dwell in the tents of Shem." The ancient book _Breshith Rabba_ remarks on this passage: "The Shechinah dwells only in the tents of Shem." (See _Schöttgen_, _de Messia_, p. 441.) _Theodoret_ also (Interrog. 58 in Genesin) advances this explanation, and ably brings out this sense. It has of late been again defended by _Hofmann_ and _Baumgarten_. But against this view there are decisive arguments, which show that Japheth alone can be the subject. To mention only a few:--It cannot be doubted that it is on purpose that Noah, when speaking of Shem, has chosen the name Jehovah, and that, as soon as he comes to Japheth, he makes use of the name Elohim. We cannot, therefore, suppose that here, where, according to this interpretation, he would just touch upon the essential point in the peculiar relation of Jehovah to the descendants of Shem--the Israelites, he should have made use of the general name of Elohim, as in the case of Japheth. The subject--Jehovah--could not in this case have been omitted before ישכן. _Further_,--By such an interpretation we are involved in inextricable difficulties as regards the last clause of the verse. The words, "And Canaan shall be a servant to them," can neither be referred to Shem alone--for, in that case, they would be an useless repetition, as in ver. 25 Canaan had been doomed to be a servant to _his brethren_--nor can they be referred to Shem and Japheth at the same time; the analogy of the למו in the preceding verse, where the plural referred to the plurality represented by the one Shem, forbids this. If, then, the last clause can refer to Japheth only, the clause in which the dwelling in the tents of Shem is spoken of, must likewise be referred to Japheth. To these arguments we may _further_ add, that there is something altogether strange in the expression: "God shall dwell in the tents of Shem." There is, in Holy Scripture, frequent mention of God's dwelling in His tabernacle, on His holy hill, in Zion, in the midst of the children of Israel. Believers also are said to dwell in the tabernacle or temple of God; but nowhere is [Pg 42] God spoken of as dwelling in the tents of Israel. _Further_,--If we refer the second clause to Shem, the first, in its detached position,