Untitled Sermon (7)
The “blessing” of procreation and dominion conferred upon the postdiluvian world is a restatement of God’s creation promise for the human family and the creatures (1:22–25, 28–30), but now its provisions are modified in light of encroaching societal wickedness.
The Lord, however, must institute safeguards whereby human society in its new environment can persevere and prosper. Now that the Lord has insured that never again such devastation will occur on the earth, laws are established that will curb the violence among humanity that had brought about the necessity of the flood (6:11–12). Neither Adam nor Noah can preserve creation from sin, as both Adam’s tree and Noah’s vine show (3:6, 17; 9:20–27). Regulations insure the continuation of the earth until its final, future redemption.
The Noahic covenant’s common allusions to 1:1–2:3 show that Noah is the second Adam who heads the new family of humanity, indicating that the blessing continues through the progeny of the Sethite line.
If our author has joined Noah’s covenant with that of Moses’ Israel, we have another association of early Genesis with later Moses by which the author establishes the thematic linkage of God’s blessing—Adam (1:26–28; 5:1–2), Noah as the new Adam (9:1–2), and Moses’ Israel. By this means the author shows how God achieved the universal blessing through Noah’s descendant Abraham, who is the covenant progenitor of all Israel.
Despite human sin and the corruption of the earth, God graciously presents anew to fallen humanity the same task of exercising dominion over the terrestrial world, primarily through procreation.
It is by this second human beginning that ultimately Abraham’s promised offspring, Jesus Christ, will bring fallen creation under subjection and thereby its redemption (Rom 8:19–22; Heb 2:8–9).
Hence the effects of sin and the flood had not altogether robbed the new world of the old hope.
Noah’s world included killing, a feature of life that has become regrettably “old hat” to us, and this demanded safeguards. Reverence for life in general and the inviolability of human life in particular, coupled with the threat of divine retribution, would impede indiscriminate killing that otherwise would be routine.
As noted by Calvin, “The providence of God is a secret bridle to restrain their violence.
The significance for the immediate narrative, however, was answering the question of what the taking of life, animal or human, might mean. It was “not a license for human savagery.”
Animal life, though given to humanity for sustenance, remained valuable in the eyes of God as a living creature and therefore merited proper care, not wanton abuse.
After establishing the stipulations regarding animal and human life, the exhortation to Noah and his sons, “be fruitful and increase,” is repeated (vv. 1, 7). Here it serves as an inclusio with v. 1, closing this unit
After establishing the stipulations regarding animal and human life, the exhortation to Noah and his sons, “be fruitful and increase,” is repeated (vv. 1, 7). Here it serves as an inclusio with v. 1, closing this unit. Society can thrive, and the blessing of procreation can be achieved but only if human life is protected from the kind of unbridled wickedness that pervaded society in the days of the Nephilim (6:4).
After establishing the stipulations regarding animal and human life, the exhortation to Noah and his sons, “be fruitful and increase,” is repeated (vv. 1, 7). Here it serves as an inclusio with v. 1, closing this unit. Society can thrive, and the blessing of procreation can be achieved but only if human life is protected from the kind of unbridled wickedness that pervaded society in the days of the Nephilim (6:4). In contrast to the murderer who terminates life (vv. 5–6), Noah’s family is commissioned to propagate and celebrate life.
The new world has the same commission as the first, and it resonates the divine benediction at the start for the “good” earth. This blessing is tied to later Israel in Exod 1:7 by the rehearsal of creation’s vocabulary; four of its five verbs are derived from the command to animal (1:22; 8:17) and human (1:28; 9:1) to proliferate. Moses’ Israel thrived under God’s creation blessing as the recipient of the divine promises for humanity (1:28) and the new humanity in Noah and his “seed” (cf. 9:9).
The sign of the “rainbow” should elicit in us both awe and thanksgiving, considering the “kindness and sternness of God” (Rom 11:22).
As a “sign” the bow functioned as a visible token of God’s invisible word of grace. “Stretched between heaven and earth, it is a bond of peace between both, and, spanning the horizon, it points to the all-embracing universality of the Divine mercy.
Thus the assurance of future security for the earth’s families has its root in the character of God himself and the precedent of Noah’s salvation.
The final section of the flood tōlĕdōt (6:9–9:29) concerns the sons of Noah with respect to their populating the earth.
Do the postdiluvian successors fare better? The answer is soon found in the deflating debacle of Noah’s drunkenness, but even there we will discover afresh how God will transform that sordid incident into a hope for future generations by the preeminence given to Shem, who fathers the Abrahamic ancestry (11:10–26).
Canaan was first and foremost associated in the Hebrew mind with a corrupt ancestry.
The telling of Noah’s drunkenness, which results in the patriarch’s invocation for curse and blessing, recalls the language of the world before the flood, especially Adam’s story, but also Cain’s rivalry with brother Abel.
In this concluding episode, the parallels are also unmistakable: Noah and Adam share in the same profession (2:15; 9:20); the language of “curse” (3:14, 17; 4:11; 5:29; 9:25) and “blessing” (1:28; 5:2; 9:26) are heard again; both experience the shame of “nakedness” (3:7, 10–11; 9:22–23); and, like Adam, Noah’s transgression results in familial strife among his descendants, resulting in fratricide for Adam’s sons (4:8) and slavery for Noah’s youngest (9:25–26).
Indeed, Noah is the second Adam both as recipient of divine blessing and as father of a corrupt seed
There were new relationships, new assurances, and a new order to things in the world; but there remained the same old human heart.
Conversely, in the flood narrative the Lord forewarns, instructs, assures, blesses, and makes covenant with Noah; but in the final episode we do not hear a divine word. Although the passage does not condemn Noah’s intoxication, the abrupt silence of God suggests that all is not well between heaven and earth. We will see this played out decisively in the Tower of Babel episode (11:1–9), where heaven has the last word for Noah’s offspring.
To what degree Noah was to blame in the matter cannot be answered confidently.
Or, more likely, his culpability is irrelevant and was passed over by the author since Noah’s drunkenness is only incidental to the narrative’s focus, the curse and blessing.
Noah’s drunkenness was reason for shame by itself, but his nakedness required action on the part of his sons.
Noah degraded himself by drunken stupor and concomitant nakedness. “Lay uncovered” (yitgal) describes his state in the tent; he is visibly naked.
Noah’s reproach was not in the drinking of the wine per se but in his excess, which led to his immodesty
How the sons reacted to Noah’s indecency is the basis for the curse and blessing they will bear in the invocation of their father that follows (vv. 25–27).
Without supposing a covert meaning, the episode is plain on the face of it. Ham “saw his father’s nakedness” and told his brothers outside the tent (v. 22).
Whereas Adam was “clothed” by God (3:21), Ham left his father bare. Unwilling to desert him, Shem and Japheth “covered the nakedness” of Noah and carefully avoided seeing his nakedness by covering themselves (so as to blind their peripheral vision) and by walking backward (v. 23).
Ham’s reproach was not in seeing his father unclothed, though this was a shameful thing (cp. Hab 2:15), but in his outspoken delight at his father’s disgraceful condition.
We have commented elsewhere (see 2:25; 3:7) that nakedness was shameful in Hebrew culture
Ham ridiculed the “old man’s” downfall. In the ancient world insulting one’s parents was a serious matter that warranted the extreme penalty of death.
“Honor your father and mother.” To do so means divine retaliation, for the crime is not against parent alone but is viewed as contempt for God’s hierarchical order in creation
In this case the curse is directed at Ham’s son as Ham’s just deserts for the disrespect he had toward his own father, Noah. Yet the imprecation was spoken against future generations of Canaanites who would suffer subjugation “not because of the sins of Ham, but because they themselves acted like Ham, because of their own transgressions
The patriarch then holds the final, tenth position in the record. Noah was the vital genealogical link between the old world and what followed “after the flood” (v. 28). Now the memory of the antediluvian era will be perpetuated by his sons and their descendants.
God’s initial speech to Noah (Gen 6:13–21) lacks even the most basic covenantal element (i.e., a promissory oath). The mention of covenant at this point simply anticipates the covenant that is ratified in Genesis 9 and discloses God’s purpose in the selection and preservation of Noah and his family.
It logically follows from this that the climax of the flood narrative is best understood in terms of a re-creation—a restoration of the divine order that had been established at creation.
As noted in Genesis 8:21, the world has not been restored to its pristine, pre-Fall condition. Rather, it is still marred by human sinfulness, significantly described in the same terms that previously provided the rationale for the deluge (Gen 6:5
While the formal declaration of the covenant oath (cf. Is 54:9) is admittedly restricted to Genesis 9:8–17, the actual ratification of the Noahic covenant begins with the offering of *sacrifices in the previous chapter (Gen 8:20).
The juxtaposition of Genesis 9:1–7 and 9:8–17 highlights the fact that the Noahic covenant incorporates bilateral obligations. Admittedly, this covenant is unconditional in the sense that God’s promises here are not contingent upon human response or behavior. Even so, the introduction of divine commands indicates that the obligations enshrined in this covenant are not unilateral.
A degree of enmity now exists between humans and animals, humanity’s nonvegetarian diet—now divinely sanctioned (cf. Gen 1:29)—undoubtedly contributing no small part. With these new circumstances in view, further responsibilities are imposed (Gen 9:4–6). Animal life in general, and human life in particular, must be treated with the dignity it deserves.
The formal declaration of the divine covenant in Genesis 9:8–17 is made up of two distinct parts: the first (Gen 9:8–11) articulates the divine oath, whereas the second (Gen 9:12–17) announces the covenant sign (see Rainbow).
Rather than indicating that this is an already-existing covenant, the description of the Noahic covenant (like the subsequent Mosaic covenant, Ex 19:5) as “my covenant” simply underlines its unilateral character. God describes the covenant as “my covenant” because he initiates it and he alone determines its constituent elements.
Thus, rather than superseding the covenant established between God and Noah, the ancestral covenants, despite their narrower primary focus, have the same ultimate objectives in view, as is clear from the programmatic agenda announced to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.
As an example of the confusion of human life, Genesis 6:1–4 describes God’s displeasure with the breaking down of divinely ordained boundaries between the human and divine worlds.
As in the garden story in Genesis 3 and the Babel story in Genesis 11, humans *sinned by aspiring to divinity. In Eden, people sought to know everything. In Babel, people overreached by building a stairway to heaven
God blessed his new creation and, as at the first creation (Gen 1:28), commanded the people to fulfill the only charge they had obeyed: multiply and fill the earth (Gen 9:1, 7).
In this atmosphere of promise, Noah’s sons did their part in repopulating the earth, with all the people of the earth branching out from them (Gen 9:18–19; 10:1–32).
The ark adventure concludes with a disturbing story of Noah’s colonized family (Gen 9:20–29). Noah planted a vineyard and ended up drunk and naked in his tent. When Ham told his brothers about their father’s state, Shem and Japheth averted their eyes and covered Noah. Whatever the precise meaning of the phrase Ham “saw his father’s nakedness,” Ham’s action against Noah resulted in a curse on Ham’s son Canaan that made him the lowest of Noah’s progeny.
Thus the themes of violence, distress and a lack of divine rest return in the wake of the reestablishment of human civilization in the postflood period. Humanity, as at the first beginning of the world, multiplied and spread over the earth. The tower of *Babel episode concludes these elemental stories. Humans still strive to be divine, and judgment comes and spreads wicked humanity across the globe.
How does he assure humanity? God uses a weapon of war—a bow—as a sign, which seems odd unless we consider the context. Remember that in a wedding, we ask, “What sign do you bring of your love and commitment?” The answer in my wedding was, “This ring.” However, in the covenant with Noah and creation, the sign God brings is a bow. Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have a word for “rainbow”; hence the sign is just “a bow in the heavens” (think bow and arrow).
However, the story is clear about what he should have done: cover up Noah’s drunken nakedness.
Whatever happened, it was clearly taken to be disrespectful in the least and, like Cain’s rejected offering, possibly a sign to the reader of deeper and systemic problems.