The Lord destroyed the corrupt, violent human race and deluged its world, but He used righteous Noah to preserve life and establish a new world after the Flood.
"Noah's experience presents decisively the author's assertion that the Lord judges human sin but provides a means for perpetuating the creation blessing (1:26-28) and the salvation hope for an elect seed (3:15). The recurring theme of blessing, threatened by sin but preserved by divine mercy, is found in the two narratives that make up the Noah toledot: the flood story (6:9-9:17) and the account of the patriarch's drunkenness (9:20-27). The former is worldwide in scope, and the latter is its microcosm. A genealogical note binds the two (9:18-19), and another concludes it (9:28-29). . . .
"Also Noah's toledotcontributes to the broader concerns of early Genesis by preparing the reader for the postdiluvian world. This new world' is the setting for understanding the perpetuation of the blessing' by the patriarchs (11:27-50:26), which is the main deliberation of Genesis."291
The chiastic (palistrophic) structure of this section shows that Moses intended to emphasize God's grace to Noah.
"One mark of the coherence of the flood narrative is to be found in its literary structure. The tale is cast in the form of an extended palistrophe, that is a structure that turns back on itself. In a palistrophe the first item matches the final item, the second item matches the penultimate item, and so on. The second half of the story is thus a mirror image of the first. This kind of literary structure has been discovered in other parts of Genesis, but nowhere else is it developed on such a large scale. This may be partly due to the fact that a flood narrative is peculiarly suited to this literary form. . . .
"Particularly striking are the references to days (lines H, I, L, O). (Only the references to days form part of the palistrophe; the 40 days and nights[vii 4, 12] and the dates do not.) The periods of time form a symmetrical pattern, 7, 7, 40, 150, 150, 40, 7, 7. The turning point of the narrative is found in viii:1 God remembered Noah.'
"What then is the function of the palistrophe? Firstly, it gives literary expression to the character of the flood event. The rise and fall of the waters is mirrored in the rise and fall of the key words in its description. Secondly, it draws attention to the real turning point in the saga: viii 1, And God remembered Noah.' From that moment the waters start to decline and the earth to dry out. It was God's intervention that was decisive in saving Noah, and the literary structure highlights this fact."292
The following diagram illustrates this palistrophe simply.
"Introduction: Noah's righteousness and Noah's sons (6:9-10).
AGod resolves to destroy the corrupt race (6:11-13).
BNoah builds an ark according to God's instructions (6:14-22).
CThe Lord commands the remnant to enter the ark (7:1-9).
DThe flood begins (7:10-16).
EThe flood prevails 150 days and the water covers the mountains (7:17-24).
FGod remembers Noah (8:1a).
E'The flood recedes 150 days, and the mountains are visible (8:1b-5).
D'The earth dries (8:6-14).
C'God commands the remnant to leave the ark (8:15-19).
B'Noah builds an altar (8:20).
Following the Flood God established human life anew on the earth showing His high regard for it. He promised to bless humanity with faithfulness, and He prohibited murder. He also promised with a sign that He would not destroy His creation again with a flood.
"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. Also 8:20-9:17 possesses lexical and thematic connections with the ratification of the Sinai covenant by Moses and the elders (Exod 24:4-18)."320
9:1-7 At this new beginning of the human family, God again commanded Noah and his sons to fill the earth with their descendants (v. 1; cf. 1:28; 9:7).321As with Adam, He also gave them dominion over the animals and permission to eat food with only one prohibition (cf. 1:26, 28-29; 2:16-17).
God gave Noah permission to eat animals (v. 3). Until now, evidently people had eaten only plants (cf. 1:29).
"God did not expressly prohibit the eating of meat in the initial stipulation at creation, but by inference 9:3's provision for flesh is used as a dividing mark between the antediluvian and postdiluvian periods. Whether or not early man could eat meat by permission from the beginning, now it is stated formally in the Noahic covenant."322
Under the Mosaic Law, the Israelites could not eat certain foods. Under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), we may again eat any foods (Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:3). These changes illustrate the fact that God has changed some of the rules for human conduct at various strategic times in history. These changes are significant features that help us identify the various dispensations (economies) by which God has ruled historically.323
God not only reasserted the cultural mandate to reproduce and modified the food law, but He also reasserted the sanctity of human life (cf. ch. 4). The reason for capital punishment (v. 6) is that God made man in His own image. This is one reason, therefore, that murder is so serious. A person extinguishes a revelation of God when he or she murders someone.324God has never countermanded this command. Consequently it is still in force.
"This command laid the foundation for all civil government."325
"The human government and the governors that existed previously--as in the city which Cain established (4:17), or in the case of the mighty men (6:4)--existed solely on human authority. Now, however, divine authority was conferred on human government to exercise oversight over those who lived under its jurisdiction."326
"I sometimes feel that often the hue and cry against capital punishment today does not so much rest upon humanitarian interest or even an interest in justice, but rather in a failure to understand that man is unique. The simple fact is that Genesis 9:6 is a sociological statement: The reason that the punishment for murder can be so severe is that man, being created in the image of God, has a particular value--not just a theoretical value at some time before the Fall, but such a value yet today."327
9:8-17 The Noahic Covenant was a suzerainty treaty that God made with humankind through Noah.328In it He promised never to destroy all flesh with a flood of water again (v. 11). The sign God appointed to remind people of this promise and to guarantee its veracity was the rainbow (v. 12-15; cf. 6:12). There may have been rainbows before this pronouncement, but now God attached significance to the rainbow.
"Shining upon a dark ground, . . . it represents the victory of the light of love over the fiery darkness of wrath. Originating from the effect of the sun upon a dark cloud, it typifies the willingness of the heavenly to penetrate the earthly. Stretched between heaven and earth, it is as a bond of peace between both, and, spanning the horizon, it points to the all-embracing universality of the Divine mercy."329
"The rainbow arcs like a battle bow hung against the clouds. (The Hebrew word for rainbow, qeset, is also the word for a battle bow.) . . .
"The bow is now put away,' hung in place by the clouds, suggesting that the battle,' the storm, is over. Thus the rainbow speaks of peace."330
This covenant would remain for "all successive generations"(v. 12). People have no responsibility to guarantee the perpetuity of this covenant; God will do all that He promised (v. 9). Observe the recurrence of "I,""Myself,"and "My"in these verses. Thus, this covenant is unconditional (v. 9), universal (v. 11), and everlasting (v. 12).331
"What distinguishes the Noahic [Covenant] from the patriarchal one and for that matter all others recounted in the Old Testament is its truly universal perspective. It is God's commitment to the whole of humanity and all terrestrial creation--including the surviving animal population."332
"The covenant with Noah [6:18; 9:9-16] is entirely unconditional rather than a conditional covenant, as in the Edenic situation. The certainty of the fulfillment of the covenant with Noah rested entirely with God and not with Noah. As this point is somewhat obscured in current discussion on the covenants of Scripture, it is important to distinguish covenants that are conditional from those that are unconditional. Conditional covenants depend on the recipients meeting the conditions imposed by God. Unconditional covenants declare that God's purpose will be fulfilled regardless of an individual's response. The fact that the covenant is one-sided--from God to humankind--does not mean that there is no response on the part of humankind. But the point is that the response is anticipated and does not leave the fulfillment of the covenant in doubt."333
". . . the author is intentionally drawing out the similarities between God's covenant with Noah and the covenant at Sinai. Why? The answer that best fits with the author's purposes is that he wants to show that God's covenant at Sinai is not a new act of God. The covenant is rather a return to God's original promises. Once again at Sinai, as he had done in the past, God is at work restoring his fellowship with man and bringing man back to himself. The covenant with Noah plays an important role in the author's development of God's restoration of blessing. It lies midway between God's original blessing of all mankind (1:28) and God's promise to bless all peoples on the earth' through Abraham (12:1-3)."334
This pericope presents the characteristics of the three branches of the human family that grew out of Noah. Moses stressed the themes of blessing and cursing. God cursed Canaan with slavery because Ham showed disrespect toward Noah whereas He blessed Shem and Japheth for their regard for their father's vulnerable condition.
"The world seems all set for a new start. The slate has been wiped clean, and we hope that the mistakes of the antediluvians will not be repeated. But no sooner is the blessing pronounced and the eternal covenant confirmed than man lapses again."335
9:18-24 Evidently Noah became so drunk that he took off all his clothes and then passed out naked in his tent. There is no indication that Ham disrobed his father or committed some homosexual act.336Noah's shame was not that he drank wine but that he drank to excess and thereby lost self-control that resulted in immodesty (cf. Eph. 5:18). Certainly this incident should warn the reader of the potential harm of drunkenness both for the drinker and for his or her family. The stumbling block for Adam and Eve had also been food.
"Whatever the actual nature of his [Noah's] conduct might have been [in becoming drunk and uncovering himself in his tent] . . . , the author presents his deed as one of disgrace and shame (nakedness,' as in Ge 3), and he seems intent on depicting the scene in such a way as to establish parallels between Noah's disgrace (he took of the fruit of his orchard and became naked) and that of Adam and Eve (who took of the fruit of the Garden and saw that they were naked)."337
Ham's gazing on Noah's nakedness represents an early step in the abandonment of the moral code after the Flood. Ham dishonored Noah not by seeing him naked but by his outspoken delight in his father's condition (cf. Gen. 19:26; Exod. 33:20; Judg. 13:22; 1 Sam. 6:19).
"It is difficult for someone living in the modern world to understand the modesty and discretion of privacy called for in ancient morality. Nakedness in the OT was from the beginning a thing of shame for fallen man [3:7] . . . the state of nakedness was both undignified and vulnerable. . . . To see someone uncovered was to bring dishonor and to gain advantage for potential exploitation."338
"The sons of Noah are here shown to belong to two groups of humankind, those who like Adam and Eve hide the shame of their nakedness and those who like Ham, or rather the Canaanites, have no sense of their shame before God. The one group, the line of Shem, will be blessed (9:26); but the other, the Canaanites (not the Hamites), can only be cursed (9:25)."339
"Shem, the father of Abraham, is the paradigm of later Israel; and Ham of their archenemies, Egypt and Canaan (10:6). Lying behind this is the ancient concept of corporate personality. Because of this unity of father-son, the character of the father is anticipated in the deeds of the sons. Hebrew theology recognized that due to parental influence future generations usually committed the same acts as their fathers whether for ill or good. 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."340
Ham's action also may have involved an attempt to take leadership of the family from Noah.341Shem and Japheth's act of covering their father's nakedness, however, imitated God who covered Adam and Eve's nakedness in the garden (3:21).
9:25-27 This oracle, the first time Moses recorded a person uttering a curse, is a prophecy announcing divine judgment on Canaan's descendants for theirsin that had its seed in Ham's act. Noah as a prophet announced the future of this grandson's descendants (cf. Gen. 49; Deut. 33; et al.).
"For his breach of the family, his [Ham's] own family would falter."342
The Canaanites became known for their shameless depravity in sexual matters.343When Joshua invaded their land he proved to be God's instrument of punishment for the Canaanites. Nevertheless the Canaanites survived until the Romans destroyed their final colony at Carthage in North Africa in 146 B.C.
There is no basis for the popular notion that this oracle doomed the Hamites, who were mainly Africans, to a position of inferiority or slavery among the other peoples of the world. Canaan and his branch of the family are the subject of this prophecy, not Ham and all his descendants.
"There are no grounds in our passage for an ethnic reading of the curse' as some have done, supposing that some peoples are inferior to others. Here Genesis looks only to the social and religious life of Israel's ancient rival Canaan, whose immorality defiled their land and threatened Israel's religious fidelity (cf. Lev 18:28; Josh 23). It was not an issue of ethnicity but of the wicked practices that characterized Canaanite culture."344
The general lesson of the passage is that God blesses those who behave righteously but curses those who abandon moral restraint.
