Genesis 9

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and

multiply, and replenish the earth. And God - Elohim, not because belonging to

the Elohistic document (Block, Tuch, Colcnso); but rather because throughout this

section the Deity is exhibited in His relations to His creatures - blessed - a repetition

of the primal blessing rendered necessary by the devastation of the Flood (compare

ch.1:28) - Noah and his sons, - as the new heads of the race, - and said unto them,

audibly, in contrast to ch. 8:21-22, which was not addressed to the patriarch,

but spoken by God to Himself in His heart, as if internally resolving on His

subsequent course of action, - Be fruitful, and multiply. A favorite expression

of the Elohist (compare ch. 1:28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:14),

(Tuch); but:

(1) the apparently great number of passages melts away when we observe

the verbally exact reference of Genesis 8:17; Genesis 9:1, 7 to Genesis 1:28;

and of ch. 48:4 to 35:11;

(2) the Elohist does not always employ his "favorite expression"

where he might have done so, as, e.g., not in ch.1:22; 17:6; 28:14;

(3) the Jehovist does not avoid it where the course of thought necessarily

calls for it (see Leviticus 26:9), (Keil). And replenish the earth. The words,

"and subdue it, which had a place in the Adamic blessing, and which the

Septuagint insert here in the Noachic (καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς -

kai katakurieusate autaes - and do subdue/dominate you), are omitted

for the obvious reason that the world dominion originally assigned

to man in Adam had been forfeited by sin, and could only be restored

through the ideal Man, the woman's seed, to whom it had been

transferred at the fall. Hence says Paul, speaking of Christ: "καὶ πάντα

ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ - kai panta hupetaxen hupo tous podas autou -

and all things subordinate under His feet (Ephesians 1:22); and the writer to

the Hebrews: νῦν δὲ οὔπω ὀρῶμεν αὐτῷ - nun de oupo oromen auto - But now

we don’t yet see all things subordinated to him (i.e. man) τὰ πάντα

ὑποτεταγμένα, τὸν δὲ βραχύτι παρ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττομένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν

διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξη καὶ τιμῆ ἐστεφανωμένον - ta panta

hupotetagmena ton de brachuti par angelous aelattomenon blepomen

Ieseuv dia to pathaema tou thanatou doxae kai timae estephanomenon -

But we see him who has been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus,

because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor,

(i.e. the world dominion which David, Psalm 8:6, recognized as belonging

to God's ideal man) ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου -

hopos chariti Theou huper pantos geusaetai thanatou - that by the grace

of God he should taste of death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:8-9). The original

relationship which God had established between man and the lower creatures

having been disturbed by sin, the inferior animals, as it were, gradually broke

loose from their condition of subjection. As corruption deepened in the

human race it was only natural to anticipate that man's lordship over the

animal creation would become feebler and feebler. Nor, perhaps, is it an

altogether violent hypothesis that, had the Deluge not intervened, in the

course of time the beast would have become the master and man the slave.

To prevent any such apprehensions in the future, as there was to be no

second deluge, the relations of man and the lower creatures were to be placed

on a new footing. Ultimately, in the palingenesia (the word denotes the

restoration of a thing to its pristine state), they would be completely

restored (compare Isaiah 11:6); in the mean time, till that glorious

consummation should arrive, the otherwise inevitable encroachments of

the creatures upon the human family in its sin-created weakness should be

restrained by a principle of fear. That was the first important modification

made upon the original Adamic blessing.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast

of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth

upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand

are they delivered. And the fear of you and the dread of you. Not simply

of Noah and his sons, but of man in general. Shall be. Not for the first time, as it

could not fail to be evoked by the sin of man during the previous generations, but,

having already been developed, it was henceforth to be turned back upon the

creature rather than directed against man. Upon. The verb to be is first construed

with עַל, and afterwards with בְּ. The Septuagint render both by ἐπὶ - epi - upon; over -

though perhaps the latter should be taken as equivalent to ἔν - en - in, in which

case the three clauses of the verse will express a gradation. The dread of man

shall first overhang the beasts, then it shall enter into and take possession of them,

and finally under its influence they shall fall into man's hand. Every beast of

the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon (literally, in; vide supra.

Murphy translates with) all that moveth upon the earth, and upon

(literally, in) all the fishes of the sea. This does not imply that the animals

may not sometimes rise against man and destroy him (compare Exodus 8:6, 17, 24;

Leviticus 26:22; 1 Kings 13:24-25; 20:36; II Kings 2:24; Ezekiel 14:15;

Acts 12:23, for instances in which the creatures were made ministers of Divine

justice), but simply that the normal condition of the lower creatures will be

one of instinctive dread of man, causing them rather to avoid than to seek

his presence - a Statement sufficiently confirmed by the facts that wherever

human civilization penetrates, there the dominion of the beasts retires; that

even ferocious animals, such as lions, tigers, and other beasts of prey, unless

provoked, usually flee from man rather than assail him. Into your hand are

they delivered. Attested by:

(1) man's actual dominion over such of the creatures as are either

immediately needful for or helpful to him, such as the horse,

the ox, the sheep, etc.; and:

(2) by man's capability of taming and so reducing to subjection

every kind of wild beast - lions, tigers, etc.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the

green herb have I given you all things. Every - obviously admitting of

"exceptions to be gathered both from the nature of the case and from the

distinction of clean and unclean beasts mentioned before and afterwards"

(Poole) - moving thing that liveth - clearly excluding such as had died of

themselves or been slain by other beasts (compare Exodus 22:31; Leviticus 22:8) -

shall be meat for you. Literally, to you it shall be for meat. Though the distinction

between unclean and clean animals as to food, afterwards laid down in the Mosaic

code (Leviticus 11:1-31), is not mentioned here, it does not follow that it was either

unknown to the writer or unpracticed by the men before the Flood. Even as the

green herb have I given you all things. An allusion to Genesis 1:29 (Rosenmüller,

Bush); but (see further on). The relation of this verse to the former has been

understood as signifying:

1. That animal food was expressly prohibited before the Flood,

and now for the first time permitted (Mercerus, Rosenmüller, Candlish,

Clarke, Murphy, Jamieson, Wordsworth, Kalisch) - the ground being

that such appears the obvious import of the sacred writer s language.

2. That, though permitted from the first, it was not used till postdiluvian

times, when men were explicitly directed to partake of it by God (Theodoret,

Chrysostom, Aquinas, Luther, Pererius) - the reason being that prior to

the Flood the fruits of the earth were more nutritious and better adapted

for the sustenance of man's physical frame, propter excellentem terrae

bonitatem praestantemque vim alimenti quod fructus terrae suppeditabant

homini, while after it such a change passed upon the vegetable productions

of the ground as to render them less capable of supporting the growing

feebleness of the body, invalidam ad bene alendum hominem (Petetins).

3. That whether permitted or not prior to the Flood, it was used, and is here

for the first time formally allowed (Keil, Alford, 'Speaker's Commentary');

in support of which opinion it may be urged that the general tendency of

subsequent Divine legislation, until the fullness of the times, was ever in the

direction of concession to the infirmities or necessities of human nature

(compare Matthew 19:8). The opinion, however, which appears to be

the best supported is:

4. That animal food was permitted before the fall, and that the grant is here

expressly renewed (Justin Martyr, Calvin, Willet, Bush, Macdonald, Lange,

Quarry). The grounds for this opinion are:

(a) That the language of ch. 1:29 does not explicitly forbid the

use of animal food.

(b) That science demonstrates the existence of carnivorous

animals prior to the appearance of man, and yet vegetable

products alone were assigned for their food.'

(c) That shortly after the fall animals were slain by Divine

direction for sacrifice, and probably also for food - at least

this latter supposition is by no means an unwarrantable

inference from ch. 4:4.

(d) That the words, "as the green herb," even if they implied the

existence of a previous restriction, do not refer to ch. 1:29,

but to (ibid. v. 30, the green herb in the latter verse being

contrasted with the food of man in Genesis 1:29. Solomon Glass

thus correctly indicates the connection and the sense: "ut viridem

herbam (illis), sic illa omnia dedi vobis"

('Sacr. Phil,' lib. 3. tr. 2, c. 22:2).

(e) That a sufficient reason for mentioning the grant of animal food

in this connection may be found in the subjoined restriction,

without assuming the existence of any previous limitation.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye

not eat. But - אַך, an adverb of limitation or exception, as in Leviticus 11:4,

introducing a restriction on the foregoing precept - flesh with the life thereof,

which is the blood thereof. Literally, with its soul, its blood; the blood being

regarded as the seat of the soul, or life principle (ibid. ch. 17:11), and even as

the soul itself (ibid. v. 14). The idea of the unity of the soul and the blood,

on which the prohibition of blood is based, comes to light everywhere

in Scripture. In the blood of one mortally wounded his soul flows forth

(Lamentations 2:12), and he who voluntarily sacrifices himself pours out

his soul unto death (Isaiah 53:12). The murderer of the innocent slays the soul

of the blood of the innocent (ψυχὴν αἵματος ἀθώου - psuchaen haimatos athoou -

soul-life blood of the innocent) Deuteronomy 27:25), which also cleaves to his

(the murderer's) skirts (Jeremiah 2:34; compare Proverbs 28:17, blood of a soul;

compare here, ch. 4:10 with Hebrews 12:24; Job 24:12 with Revelation 6:9-10;

see also Psalm 94:21; Matthew 23:35). Nor can it be said to be exclusively

peculiar to Holy Scripture. In ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics the hawk, which

feeds on bloods, represents the soul. Virgil says of a dying person, "purpuream

vomit ille animam" ('AEneid,' 9:349). The Greek philosophers taught that the

blood was either the soul (Critias), or the soul s food (Pythagoras), or the soul's

seat (Empedocles), or the soul's producing cause (the Stoics); but only Scripture

reveals the true relation between them both when it declares the blood

to be not the soul absolutely, but the means of its self-attestation (see

Delitzsch s ' Bib. Psychology,' div. 4. sec. 11.). Shall ye not eat. Not referring

to, although certainly forbidding, the eating of flesh taken from a living animal

(Raschi, Cajetan, Delitzsch, Luther, Peele, Jamieson) - a fiendish custom which

may have been practiced among the antediluvians, as, according to travelers,

it is, or was, among modern Abyssinians; rather interdicting the flesh of

slaughtered animals from which the blood has not been properly drained

(Calvin, Keil, Kalisch, Murphy, Wordsworth). The same prohibition (commonly

regarded by the Hebrew doctors as the seventh of the Noachic precepts which

were enjoined upon all nations; vide infra, v. 6) was afterwards incorporated in

the Mosaic legislation (compare Leviticus 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26;

Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-24; 15:23), and subsequently imposed upon the

Gentile converts in the Christian Church by the authority of the Holy Ghost

and the apostles (Acts 15:28-29). Among other reasons, doubtless, for the

original promulgation of this law were these:

1. A desire to guard against the practice of cruelty to animals

(Chrysostom, Calvin, 'Speaker's Commentary').

2. A design to hedge about human life by showing the inviolability

which in God s eye attached to even the lives of the lower creatures

(Calvin, Willet, Peele, Kalisch, Murphy).

3. The intimate connection which even in the animal creation subsisted

between the blood and the life (Kurtz, 'Sacr. Worship,' I. A.V.).

4. Its symbolic use as an atonement for sin (Peele, Delitzsch, ' Bib. Psy.'

4:11; Keil, Wordsworth, Murphy). That the restriction continues

to the present day may perhaps be argued from its having been

given to Noah, but cannot legitimately be inferred from having

been imposed on the Gentile converts to Christianity as one

τῶν ἐπάναγκες τούτων - ton epanagkes touton - these essentials;

these necessary things - from the burden of which they could not

be excused (Clarke), as then, by parity of reasoning, meat offered

to idols would be equally forbidden, which it is not, except when

the consciences of the weak and ignorant are endangered (Calvin).

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast

will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother

will I require the life of man. And surely. Again the conjunction אַך introduces

a restriction. The blood of beasts might without fear be shed for necessary uses,

but the blood of man was holy and inviolable. Following the Septuagint

(καὶ γὰρ - kai gar - and for; also since), Jerome, Pererius, Mercerus, Calvin,

Peele, Willet give a causal sense to the conjunction, as if it supplied the

reason of' the foregoing restriction - a sense which, according to Furst

('Hebrews Lex.,' sub nom.) it sometimes, though rarely, has; as in II Kings 24:3;

Psalm 39:12; 68:22; but in each case אַך is better rendered "surely." Your blood

of your lives.

(1) For your souls, i.e. in requital for them - lex talionis (law of retaliation),

blood for blood, life for life (Kalisch, Wordsworth, Bush);

(2) for your souls, i.e. for their protection (Gesenins, Miehaelis,

Schumann, Tuch);

(3) from your souls - a prohibition against suicide (Suma-tan);

(4) with reference to your souls, - לְ = quoad (Ewald, ' Hebrews Syn.,' 310 a), -

as if specifying the particular blood for which exaction would be made

(Keil);

(5) of your souls, belonging to them, or residing in them (Septuagint, Syriac,

Vulgate, Authorized Version, Calvin, Rosenmüller (qui ad animas vestras

perti net), Murphy, 'Speaker's Commentary') although, according to

Kalisch, לְ cannot have the force of a genitive after דּמְכֶס, a substantive

with a suffix; but see Leviticus 18:20, 23; compare Ewald, 'Hebrews

Syn.,' p. 113. Perhaps the force of לְ may be brought out by rendering,

"your blood to the extent of your lives; ' i.e. not all blood-letting, but

that which proceeds to the extent of taking life (compare v. 15:

"There shall no more be waters to the extent of a flood").

Will I require. Literally, search after, with a view to punishment;

hence avenge (compare ch. 42:22; Ezekiel 33:6; Psalm 9:13). At

(literally, from) the hand of every beast will I require it. Not "an

awful warning against cruelty to the brute creation!" (Clarke), but

a solemn proclamation of the sanctity of human life, since it

enacted that that beast should be destroyed which slew a man -

a statute afterwards incorporated in the Mosaic legislation (Exodus

21:28-32), and practiced even in Christian times; "not for any

punishment to the beast, which, being under no law, is capable of

neither sin nor punishment, but for caution to men" (Peele). If this

practice appears absurd to some moderns (Dr. H. Oort, 'The Bible

for Young People,' p. 103), it was not so to Solon and Draco, in

whose enactments there was a similar provision (Delitzsch, Lunge).

And at (from) the hand of man; at (or from) the hand of every

man's brother. Either:

(a) two persons are here described -

(α) the individual man himself, and

(β) his brother, i.e. the suicide and the murderer

(Maimonides, Wordsworth, Murphy), or the murderer

and his brother man, i.e. kinsman, or goel (Michaelis,

Bohlen, Baumgarten, Kalisch, Bush), or the ordinary

civil authorities (Kalisch, Candlish, Jamieson) - or

(b) one, viz., the murderer, who is first generically distinguished

from the beast, and then characterized as his victim's brother;

as thus - " at" or from "the hand of man," as well as beast;

"from the hand of the individual man, or every man (compare

ch. 42:25; for this distributive use of אִישׁ) his brother," supplying

a new argument against homicide (Calvin, Knobel, Delitzsch). The

principal objection to discovering Goelism in the phraseology

is that it requires מִיַּד to be understood in two different senses,

and the circumstance, that the institution of the magistracy

appears to be hinted at in the next verse, renders it unnecessary

to detect it in this. Will I require the life (or soul) of man. The

specific manner in which this inquisition after Blood should

be carried out is indicated in the words that follow.

6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for

in the image of God made He man. Whoso sheddeth. Literally, he shedding,

i.e. willfully and unwarrantably; and not simply accidentally, for which kind of

manslaughter the law afterwards provided (see Numbers 35:11); or judicially,

for that is commanded by the present statute. Man's blood. Literally, blood of

the man, human blood. By man. Not openly and directly by God, but by man

himself, acting of course as God's instrument and agent - an instruction which

involved the setting up of the magisterial office, by whom the sword might be

borne ("Hic igitur fens est, ex quo manat totum jus civile etjus gentium." - Luther.

Compare Numbers 35:29-31; Romans 13:4), and equally laid a basis for the law

of the goel subsequently established in Israel (Deuteronomy 19:6; Joshua 20:3).

The Chaldee paraphrases, "with witnesses by sentence of the judges." The

Septuagint substitutes for "by man" ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ - anti tou

haimatos autou - as much/in return his blood - (an interpretation followed

by Professor Lewis, who quotes Jona ben Gannach in its support, Shall.

Not merely a permission legalizing, but an imperative command enjoining,

capital punishment, the reason for which follows. For in the image of God

made He man. To apply this to the magistracy (Bush, Murphy, Keil), who

are sometimes in Scripture styled Elohim (Psalm 82:6), and the ministers

of God (Romans 13:4), and who may be said to have been made in the

Divine image in the sense of being endowed with the capacity of ruling

and judging, seems forced and unnatural; the clause obviously assigns the

original dignity of man (compare ch. 1:28) as the reason why the murderer

cannot be suffered to escape (Calvin, Poole, Alford, 'Speaker's Commentary,'

Candlish, Lange)

7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the

earth, and multiply therein. (see on v. 1)

New Arrangements for a New Era (vs. 1-7)

I. PROVISION FOR THE INCREASE OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.

1. The procreate instrumentality — the ordinance of marriage (vs. 1, 7),

which was –

(a) A Divine institution appointed by God in Eden (compare

ch. 2:24, and Matthew 19:5).

(b) A sacred institution. Every ordinance of God’s appointment, it may be

said, is in a manner holy; but a special sanctity attaches to that of marriage.

God attested the estimation in which He held it by visiting the world’s

corruption, which had principally come through its desecration, with the

waters of a flood.

(c) A permanent institution, being the same in its nature, uses, and ends

that it had been from the beginning, only modified to suit the changing

circumstances of man’s condition. Prior to the fall it was exempt from any

of those imperfections which in human experience have clung to it ever

since. Subsequent to the melancholy entrance of sin, there was superadded

to the lot of woman an element of pain and sorrow from which she had

been previously free; and though anterior to the Flood it had been grossly

abused by man’s licentiousness, after it, we cannot doubt, it was restored in

all its original purity, though still with the curse of sorrow unremoved.

2. The originating cause — the Divine blessing (vs. 1, 7), without which:

(a) The marriage bed would not be fruitful (Psalm 127:3). Compare

the cases of:

(α) Rachel (ch. 30:2),

(β) Hannah (1 Samuel 1:11),

(γ) Ruth (Ruth 4:13).

(b) The married life would not be holy. What marriage is and leads to

when dissociated from the fear of God had already been significantly

displayed upon the theatre of the antediluvian world, and is abundantly

declared in Scripture both by:

(α) precept (ch. 24:3; 28:1; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3-4;

Joshua 23. 12-13*; II Corinthians 6:14) and,

(β) example;

· the Israelites (Judges 3:6-7),

· Samson (ibid. 14:1-16),

· Solomon (1 Kings 3:1, 11:1-9),

· the Jews (Ezra 9:1-12).

(c) The marriage tie would not be sure. As ungodliness tends to

violate the marriage law by sins of polygamy, so, without the

fear of God, there is no absolute security that the bond may

not be broken by adultery and divorce (compare ch. 19:5, 8; 35:22;

II Samuel 11:1-5; Mark 6:17-18).

II. PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.

1. Against the world of animals.

(a) In Eden such protection was not required, man having been constituted

lord of the inferior creation, and the beasts of the field never rising to

dispute his authority, his rule being characterized by gentleness and love

(ch. 20).

(b) After the fall such protection was incomplete. A change having passed

upon the master, there is reason to suppose that a corresponding change

transpired upon the servant. The moral order of the world having been

dislocated, a like instability would doubtless invade those economical

arrangements that depended on man for their successful administration.

As man sank deeper into the mire of corruption, his supremacy over the

beasts of the field would appear to have been more frequently and fiercely

disputed (ch. 6:11). But now, the Flood having washed away the

sinning race,

(c) such protection was henceforth to be rendered secure by imbuing the

brute nature with an instinctive dread of man which would lead the animals

to acknowledge his supremacy, and rather flee from his presence than

assail his dominion. The operation of this law is proved today by the facts

that man retains unquestioned his lordship over all those domesticated

animals that are useful to him; that there is no creature, however wild and

ferocious, that he cannot tame; and that wherever man appears with his

civilizing agencies the wild beast instinctively retires. (as depicted

in John Gast’s painting of “Manifest Destiny” of America - CY -2024)

2. Against the world of men. Ever since the fall man has required to be

protected against himself. Prior to the Flood it does not appear that even

crimes of murder and bloodshed were publicly avenged. Now, however,

the previous laxness, if it was such, and not rather Divine clemency, was to

cease, and an entirely new arrangement to come into operation.

(a) The law was henceforth to inflict CAPITAL PUNISHMENT on its

murderers; not the law of man simply, but the law of God. Given to Noah,

this statute was designed for the universal family of man until repealed by

the Authority that imposed it. (And that authority is not the Supreme Court

of the United States - CY - 2024) Not having been exclusively a Jewish

statute, the abrogation of the Mosaic economy does not affect its stability.

Christ, having come not to destroy the fundamental laws of Heaven, may

be fairly presumed to have left this standing. Inferences from the spirit of

Christianity have no validity as against an express Divine commandment.

(b) The reasons for the law were to be the essential dignity of man’s nature

(v. 6; compare the homily on the greatness of man, from ch.1:26 below after

this homily - CY - 2024)*) and the fundamental brotherhood of the race

(v. 5), a point which appears not to have received sufficient prominence

in pre-diluvian times (compare Acts 17:26).

(c) The execution of the law was neither to be retained in the Divine hand

for miraculous administration, nor to be left in that of the private

individual (the kinsman) to gratify revenge, but to be entrusted to society

for enforcement by means or a properly-constituted tribunal. This was

the commencement of social government among men, and the institution of

the magisterial office, or the power of the sword (see Romans 13:1-5).

III. PROVISION FOR THE SUSTENANCE OF THE HUMAN FAMILY.

1. The rule. It is not certain that animal food was forbidden in Eden; it is

almost certain that it was in use between the fall and the Flood. At the

commencement of the new era it was expressly sanctioned.

2. The restriction. While the flesh of animals might be used as food, they

were not to be mutilated while alive, nor was the blood to be eaten with

the flesh. Note the bearing of the first of these on the question of

vivisection, which the Divine law appears explicitly to forbid, except it can

be proved to be indispensable for the advancement of medical knowledge

with a view to the healing of disease, and, in the case of extending a

permission, imperatively requires to be carried on with the least possible

infliction of pain upon the unresisting creature whose life is thus sacrificed

for the good of man; and of the second of these, on the lawfulness of

eating blood under the Christian dispensation, see Exposition on v. 4.

3. The reason.

(a) For the rule, which, though not stated, may be judged to have been

(α) a concession to the moral weakness of man’s soul, and

(β) a provision for the physical infirmity of man’s body.

(b) For the restriction

(α) to prevent cruelty to animals;

(β) to fence about man s life by showing the criminality of

destroying that of the beast;

(γ) to assert God s lordship over all life;

(δ) because of its symbolic value as the sign of atoning blood.

· LESSONS:

1. God’s clemency towards man.

2. God’s care for man.

3. God’s goodness to man.

4. God’s estimate of man.

The Greatness of Man (Genesis 1:27)*

• THE TIME OF HIS APPEARANCE. The latest of God s works, he

was produced towards the close of the era that witnessed the introduction

upon our globe of the higher animals. Taking either view of the length of

the creative day, it may be supposed that in the evening the animals went

forth “to roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God,” and that in

the morning man arose upon the variegated scene, “going forth to his work

and to his labor until the evening” (Psalm 104:20-23). In this there was

a special fitness, each being created at the time most appropriate to its

nature. Man’s works are often mistimed; God’s never. Likewise in man’s

being ushered last upon the scene there was peculiar significance; it was a

virtual proclamation of his greatness.

• THE SOLEMNITY OF HIS MAKING, which was preceded by a

Divine consultation: “Let us make man,” (v. 26). The language of:

Ø Resolution. As if, in the production of the other creatures, the all-wise

Artificer had been scarcely conscious of an effort, but must now bestir

Himself to the performance of His last and greatest work.

Ø Forethought. As if His previous makings had been, in comparison with

this, of so subordinate importance that they might be executed

instantaneously and, as it were, without premeditation, whereas this

required intelligent arrangement and wise consideration beforehand.

Ø Solicitude. As if the insignificance of these other labors made no special

call upon His personal, care and attention, whereas the vastness of the

present undertaking demanded the utmost possible watchfulness and

caution.

Ø Delight. As if the fashioning and beautifying of the globe and its

replenishing with sentient beings, unspeakably glorious as these

achievements were afforded Him no satisfaction in comparison with

this which He contemplated, the creating of man in His own image

(compare Proverbs 8:31).

• THE DIGNITY OF HIS NATURE. “Created after God’s image and

likeness,” suggesting ideas of:

Ø Affinity, or kinship. The resplendent universe, with its suns and systems,

its aerial canopy and green-mantled ground, its Alps and Himalayas, its

oceans, rivers, streams, was only as plastic clay in the hands of a skilful

potter. Even the innumerable tribes of living creatures that had been let

loose to swarm the deep, to cleave the sky, to roam the earth, were

animated by a principle of being that had no closer connection with the

Deity than that which effect has with cause; but the life which inspired

man was a veritable outcome from the personality of God (ch. 2:7).

Hence man was something higher than a creature. As imago Dei he was

God’s son (Malachi 2:10; Acts 17:28).

Ø Resemblance. A distinct advance upon the previous thought, although

implied in it. This likeness or similitude consisted in:

o Personality. Light, air, land, sea, sun, moon, stars were “things.”

Plants, fishes, fowls, animals were “lives,” although the first

are never so characterized in Scripture. Man was a “person.”

o Purity. The image of absolute holiness must itself be immaculate.

In this sense Christ was “the express image of God’s person”

(Hebrews 1:3); and though man is not now a complete likeness

of his Maker in the moral purity of his nature, when he came

from the Creator’s hand he was. It is the object of Christ’s work

to renew in man THE IMAGE OF HIS MAKER!

(Ephesians 4:24).

o Power. That man’s Creator was a God of power was implied

in His name, ELOHIM, and demonstrated by His works.

Even fallen man we can perceive to be possessed of many

elements of power that are the shadows of that which resided

in Elohim — the power of self-government, and of lordship

over the creatures, of language and of thought, of volition and

of action, of originating, at least in a secondary sense, and of

combining and arranging. In the first man they resided in

perfection.

Ø Representation. Man was created in God’s image that he might be a

visible embodiment of the Supreme to surrounding creatures. “The

material world, with its objects sublimely great or meanly little, as we

judge them; its atoms of dust, its orbs of fire; the rock that stands by

the seashore, the water that wears it away; the worm, a birth of

yesterday, which we trample underfoot; the sheets of the constellations

that gleam perennial overhead; the aspiring palm tree fixed to one spot,

and the lions that are sent out free — these incarnate and make visible

all of God their natures will admit.” Man in his nature was intended as

the highest representation of God that was possible short of

THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD HIMSELF!

• THE GRANDEUR OF HIS DOMINION. Man was designed to be

God’s image in respect of royalty and lordship; and as no one can play the

monarch without a kingdom and without subjects, God gave him both an

empire and a people.

Ø An empire.

o Of wide extent. In the regal charter reaching to the utmost

bounds of this terrestrial sphere (v. 26).

o Of available character. Not a region that was practically

unconquerable, but every square inch of it capable of

subjugation and occupation.

o Of vast resources. Everything in heaven, earth and sea was

placed at his command. (Psalm 8)

o Of incalculable value. Nothing was absolutely useless, and

many things were precious beyond compare.

o Of perfect security. God had given’ it to him. The grant was

absolute, the gift was sure.

Ø A people.

o Numerous. Every living thing was subjected to his sway.

o Varied. The fishes, fowls, and beasts were his servants

o Submissive. As yet they had not broken loose against their master.

o Given. They were not acquired by the sword, but donated by

their Maker.

The New Life of Man on the Earth (vs. 1-7)

A new revelation of the Divine favor. The chief points are:

I. UNLIMITED POSSESSION OF THE EARTH, and use of its

inhabitants and products, whether for food or otherwise; thus supplying:

1. The scope of life.

2. The enjoyment of life.

3. The development of life.

II. ABSOLUTE RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE, and preservation of the

gentler feelings (the blood being forbidden as injurious to man in this case),

promoting:

1. The supremacy of the higher nature over the lower.

2. The revelation of the ethical law.

3. The preparation of the heart for Divine communications.

III. MAN LIVING IN BROTHERHOOD,

1. Revealing the image of God,

2. Observing God’s law,

3. Rejoicing in His blessing, he shall multiply and fill the earth.

The earth waits for such inhabitants; already by Divine judgments

prepared for them.

8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,

And God spake - in continuation of the preceding discourse - unto Noah, and

to his sons with him, saying.

9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; .

And I, behold, I establish - literally, am causing to rise up or stand; ἀνίστημι -

anistami - I am standing up again; resurrect - (Septuagint) - my covenant (compare

ch. 6:18) with you, and with your seed after you. I.e. the covenant contemplated

all subsequent posterity in its provisions, and, along with the human family,

the entire animal creation.

10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the

cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out

of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And with every living creature - literally,

every soul (or breathing thing) that liveth, a generic designation of which the

particulars are now specified - that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and

of every beast of the earth - literally, in fowl, etc.; i.e. belonging to these

classes of animals (compare ch. 1:25, 30; 6:20; 8:17) with you; from all that

go out of the ark, - not necessarily implying ('Speaker s Commentary,' Murphy),

though in all probability it was the case, that there were animals which had

never been in the ark; but simply an idiomatic phrase expressive of the totality

of the animal creation (Alford) - to every beast of the earth. I.e. wild beast

(ch. 1:25), the chayyah of the land, which was not included among the animals

that entered the ark (Murphy); or living creature (ch. 2:19), referring here

to the fishes of the sea, which were not included in the ark (Kalisch).

That the entire brute creation was designed to be embraced in the

Noachic covenant seems apparent from the use of the prepositions - בְּ describing

the classes to which the animals belong, as in ch. 7:21; מִן indicating one portion

of the whole, the terminus aquo, and לְ the terminus ad quem - in their enumeration

(see Furst, 'Hebrew Lex.,' sub לְ., p. 715; cf. Kell in loco). Kalisch thinks the

language applies only to the animals of Noah's time, and not to those of a

later age, on the ground that "the destiny of the animals is everywhere

connected with that of the human race;" but this is equivalent to their

being included in the covenant.

11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut

off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a

flood to destroy the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you.

Not form it for the first time, as if no such covenant had existed in antediluvian

times (Knobel); but cause it to stand or permanently establish it, so that it shall

no more be in danger of being overthrown, as it recently has been. The word

"my" points to a covenant already in existence, though not formally mentioned

until the time of Noah (ch. 6:18). The promise of the woman's seed, which

formed the substance of the covenant during the interval from Adam to Noah,

was from Noah's time downwards to be enlarged by a specific pledge of the

stability of the earth and the safety of man (compare ch. 8:22). Neither shall

all flesh - including the human race and animal creation. Compare כָּל־בָּשָׂר

mankind (ch. 6:12), the lower creatures (ch. 7:21) - be cut off any more by

the waters of a flood. Literally, the flood just passed, which would no more

return. Neither shall there any more be a flood (of any kind) to destroy the

earth. Regions might be devastated and tribes of animals and men swept

away, but never again would there be a universal destruction of the earth

or of man.

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me

and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

And God said, This is the token - אות (see ch. 1:14; 4:15) - of the covenant

which I make - literally, am giving (compare ch. 17:2) - between me and

you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations.

Le'doroth (see ch. 6:9); olam (from alam, to hide, to conceal), pr.

that which is hidden; hence, specially, time of which either the beginning

or the end is uncertain or undefined, the duration being usually determined

by the nature of the case (see Gesenius, 'Hebrews Lex.,' sub voce). Here the

meaning is, that so long as there were circuits or generations of men upon

the earth, so long would this covenant endure.

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant

between me and the earth. I do set. Literally, I have given, or placed, an

indication that the atmospheric phenomenon referred to had already frequently

appeared (Syriac, Arabic, Aben Ezra, Chrysostom, Calvin, Willet, Murphy,

Wordsworth, Kalisch, Lange). The contrary opinion has been maintained

that it now for the first time appeared (Bush, Keil, Delitzsch), or at least that

the historian thought so (Knobel); but unless there had been no rain, or the

laws of light and the atmospheric conditions of the earth had been different

from what they are at present, it must have been a frequent spectacle in the

primeval heavens. My bow. i.e. the rainbow, τόξον - toxon - bow (Septuagint),

(compare Ezekiel 1:28). The ordinary rainbow consists of a series of successive

zones or bands of polarized light, forming little concentric circles in the sky,

and having a common center almost always below the horizon, and diametrically

opposite to the sun. It is produced by the refraction and reflection of the sun's

light through the spherical raindrops on which the rays fall, and, accordingly,

must always appear, with a greater or a lesser degree of visibility, when the

two material agencies come in contact The part of the sky on which the

rainbow is thrown is much more bright within than without the bow. The outer

space is dark, almost black; and the inner space, on the contrary, melts into the

violet almost insensibly (Nichol's 'Cyclopedia of the Sciences,' art. Rainbow).

It is here styled God's bow, as being His workmanship (compare

Ecclesiasticus 43:11-12 - Look upon the rainbow, and praise Him that made

it; very beautiful it is in the brightness thereof. It compasseth the heaven

about with a glorious circle, and the hands of the most High have bended it.),

and His seal appended to His covenant (v. 17). In the cloud, עָנָן that which

veils the heavens, from a root signifying to cover (Gesenius). And it shall be for

a token, לְאות = εἰς σημεῖον - eis saemeion - a sign - [the same word used many

times is the Gospel of John of Jesus; i.e. resurrection, bread of life, light of the

world, etc. - CY - 2024] (Septuagint). In Greek mythology the rainbow is

designated by a name (Iris) which is at least connected with εἴρω - eiro - to speak,

and εἰρήνη - eiraenae - peace; is represented as the daughter of Thaumas

(wonder), and Electra (brightness) the daughter of Oceanus; is assigned the

office of messenger to the king and queen of Olympus; and is depicted as

set in heaven for a sign (Homer, 'I1,' 11:27; 17:547, 548; 24:144, 159;

Virgil, AEn.,' 4:694; 5:606; Ovid, 'Met.,' 1:270; 11:585). The Persians

seem to have associated the rainbow with similar ideas. An old picture,

mentioned by Stolberg, represents a winged boy on a rainbow with an old

man kneeling in a posture, of worship. The Hindus describe the rainbow as

a warlike weapon in the hands of Indras their god, "with which he hurls flashing

darts upon the impious giants;" but also as a symbol of peace exhibited to man

"when the combat of the heavens is silenced." By the Chinese it is regarded as

the harbinger of troubles and misfortunes on earth, and by the old Scandinavians

as a bridge uniting earth and heaven ('Kalisch on Genesis,' pp. 223, 224).

Traditional reflections of the Biblical narrative, they do not "account for

the application in the Pentateuch of the rainbow to a very remarkable

purpose," or "explain why the New Testament represents the rainbow as

an attribute of the Divine throne," or "why angels are sent as messengers

on earth" (Kalisch); but are themselves accounted for and explained by it.

Of a covenant. "The bow in the hands of man was an instrument of battle

(ch. 48:22; Psalm 7:12; Zechariah 9:10); but the bow bent by

the hand of God has become a symbol of peace" (Wordsworth). Between me

and the earth.

The Bow in the Cloud (v. 13)

With deep joy and yet with awe must Noah have looked around him on

leaving the ark. On every side signs of the mighty destruction; the earth

scarcely dried, and the busy throng of men (Luke 17:27) all gone. Yet

signs of new life; the earth putting forth verdure, as though preparing for a

new and happier chapter of history. His first recorded act was sacrifice —

an acknowledgment that his preserved life was God’s gift, a new

profession of faith in Him. Then God gave the promise that no such

destruction should again befall the earth, and so ordered the sign that the

rain-cloud which might excite the fear should bring with it the rainbow, the

pledge of the covenant. But as ch. 6:18 foreshadowed the Christian covenant

(1 Peter 3:21) in its aspect of deliverance from destruction, the text points

to the same in its bearing on daily life and service. The Godward life and

renewal of the will which the law could not produce (Romans 8:3) is made

sure to believers through the constraining power of the love of Christ

(compare 1 John 3:3; Revelation 12:11). And if clouds should cause fear, and

God’s face be hidden, and the energy of dedication grow languid (lethargic),

we are reminded (Romans 6:14; Galatians 5:24). And in the vision of the

glorified Church (Revelation 4:3) the rainbow again appears, pointing back

to the early sign, connecting them as parts of one scheme, and visibly setting

forth the glory of God in His mercy and grace (compare Exodus 33:19; 34:6;

John 1:14).

I. THE COVENANT WAS MADE WITH NOAH AND HIS SEED AS

CHILDREN OF FAITH. They had believed in God’s revealed way of

salvation and entered the ark (compare Numbers 21:8). The root of a

Christian life is belief in a finished redemption (II Corinthians 5:14;

1 John 5:11); not belief that the doctrine is true, but trust in the fact as

the one ground of hope. Hast thou acted on God’s call; entered the ark;

trusted Christ; none else, nothing else? Waitest thou for something in

thyself? Noah did not think of fitness when told to enter. God calleth thee

as unfit (compare 1 Timothy 1:15). Try to believe; make a real effort (compare

Matthew 15:28; Mark 9:23).

II. THE POWER OF A CHRISTIAN LIFE; FAITH AS A HABIT OF

THE MIND. Look to the bow. “Looking unto Jesus.” The world is the

field on which God’s grace is shown; we are the actors by whom His work

is done. How shall we do this? Beset by hindrances:

· love of the world,

· love of self,

· love of ease.

We cannot of ourselves (compare Luke 22:33-34; Romans 11:20).

We are strong only in trusting to the power of the Lord (compare

II Corinthians 12:10; Philippians 4:13).

III. IN THIS THE HOLY SPIRIT IS OUR HELPER. His office is to

reveal Christ to the soul. His help is promised if sought for.

14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that

the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And it shall come to pass, when I bring

a cloud over the earth. Literally, in my clouding a cloud, i.e. gathering clouds,

which naturally signify store of rain (1 Kings 18:44-45). Clouds are often used

to denote afflictions and dangers (compare Ezekiel 30:3, 18; 32:7; 34:12; Joel 2:2).

That the bow shall be seen in the cloud. Literally, and the bow is seen, which

it always is when the sun's rays fall upon it, if the spectator's back is towards

the light, and his face towards the cloud. Thus at the moment when danger

seems to threaten most, the many-colored arch arrests the gaze.

15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you

and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more

become a flood to destroy all flesh. And I will remember (compare ch. 8:1).

An anthropomorphism introduced to remind man that God is ever faithful to

His covenant engagements (Calvin). "God is said to remember, because He

maketh us to know and to remember" (Chrysostom). My covenant (see on v. 11),

which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the

waters shall no more become a flood - hayah with le - to become (compare

ch. 2:7); literally, shall no more be (i.e. grow) to a flood; or, "and there

shall no more be the waters to the extent of a flood " - to destroy all flesh.

16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I

may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every

living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And the bow shall

be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the

everlasting covenant. Literally, the covenant of eternity. One of

those pregnant Scripture sayings that have in them an almost inexhaustible

fullness of meaning, which does not at first sight disclose itself to the eye

of the unreflecting reader. In so far as the Noachic covenant was simply

a promise that there should be no recurrence of a flood, the covenant

of eternity had a corresponding limit in its duration to the period of

this present terrestrial economy. But, rightly viewed, the Noachic

covenant was the original Adamic covenant set up again in a different

form; and hence, when applied to it, the phrase covenant of eternity

is entitled to retain its highest and fullest significance, as a covenant

reaching from eternity to eternity. Between God and every living

creature of all-flesh that is upon the earth.

The Covenant Renewed (v. 16)

I. THE AUTHOR OF THE COVENANT. GOD. This is evident from the

nature of the case. In ordinary language a covenant signifies “a mutual

contract between two (or more) parties” (Hodge, ‘Syst. Theol.,’ vol. ii. p.

355); compare:

· Abraham and Abimelech (ch. 21:27);

· Joshua and Israel (Joshua 24:25)

· Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:3

· Ahab and Benhadad (1 Kings 20:34 (Ahab and Benhadad);’

comprehending a promise made by the one to the other, accompanied

with a condition, upon the performance of which the accepter becomes

entitled to the fulfillment of the promise” (Dick’s ‘Theol. Lect.,’ 45.).

Applied, however, to those transactions between God and man which

took their rise subsequent to the fall, a covenant is an arrangement or

disposition originated by God under which certain free and gracious

promises are made over to man, which promises are ratified by sacrifice

and impose certain obligations on their recipients, while they are usually

connected with institutions illustrative of their nature (cf. ‘Kelly on the

Covenants,’ lecture 1. p. 12). But, taking either definition of the term,

it is obvious that the initial movement in any such transaction

must belong to God; and with special emphasis does God claim to be the

sole Author of the covenant established with Noah and his descendants

(vs. 9, 11-12, 17).

II. THE PARTIES TO THE COVENANT, i.e. the persons interested in

the covenant; viz., Noah and his posterity. But Noah and his sons at that

time were:

1. The heads of the race. Hence the covenant may be said to have

possessed a worldwide aspect. Because of their connection with Noah the

entire family of man had an interest in its provisions.

2. The fathers of the Church. As believers Noah and his family had been

saved; and with them, in the character of believers, the covenant was made.

Hence it had also a special outlook to the Church, for whom it had a

blessing quite distinct from that which it conferred upon the world as such.

III. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COVENANT. Calling it so frequently

as He does “my covenant” (ch. 6:18; 7:9, 11), the Author of it

seems desirous to connect it in our thoughts with that old covenant which,

more than sixteen centuries earlier, he had established with mankind

immediately after the fall. Now that covenant was in substance an

arrangement, disposition, proposal, or promise of mercy and salvation; and

that has been the essential element in every covenant that God has made

with man. So to speak, God’s covenant is just another name for His formal

conveyance to mankind sinners of the free gift of Christ and His salvation.

IV. THE FORM OF THE COVENANT. While in every age essentially

the same, the form of the covenant has been changing with the changing

eras of human history. When we speak of a change of dispensation, the

thing meant is a change upon the outward form or mode of representing

the covenant — a dispensation being a Divine arrangement for

communicating blessing. In pre-diluvian times the form which the covenant

assumed was the promise of the woman’s seed. From the Deluge onwards

it was a promise of forbearance — “ Neither shall all flesh be cut off any

more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there be any more a flood to

destroy the earth.” In the patriarchal era it became the promise of A SON

“in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed” (ch. 12:3: 22:18).

· Under the Mosaic dispensation the promise of a prophet like

unto Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15);

· during the monarchy the promise of a king to sit upon David’s

throne (II Samuel 7:12);

in the time of Isaiah the promise of a suffering servant of the Lord

(Isaiah 42., 53.);

· in the fullness of the times it assumed its permanent form, viz.,

that of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ:

Ø as the woman’s seed,

Ø as Abraham’s child,

Ø as David’s son, and

Ø as Jehovah’s servant.

V. THE SEAL OF THE COVENANT. Covenant transactions under the

old or Levitical dispensation were invariably accompanied with the offering

up of sacrificial victims, as a public attestation of the binding character of

the arrangement. The covenant which God made with Noah had also its

sacrificial seal.

1. The meritorious sacrifice. The propitiatory offering of the Lord Jesus

Christ, on the sole ground of which He is well pleased with and mercifully

disposed towards the race of sinful man.

2. The typical sacrifice. The offering of Noah upon Ararat after emerging

from the ark.

VI. THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT. The rainbow, which was:

1. A universal sign. The covenant having been made with the entire family

of man, it was in a manner requisite that the sign should be one which was

patent to the race; not limited and local and national, like circumcision,

afterwards given to the Hebrews or Abrahamidae, but universal,

omnipresent, cosmopolitan; and such was the rainbow. This was a first mark

of kindness on the part of God towards the family which He had taken into

covenant with Himself.

2. An attractive sign. Such as could not fail to arrest the gaze of those whose

special interest it was to behold it. Nothing is more remarkable than the

quickness with which it attracts the eye, and the pleasurable feelings which

its sight enkindles. In its selection, then, to be a sign and symbol of His

covenant, instead of something in itself repulsive or even indifferent, we

can detect another proof of kindness on the part of God.

3. A seasonable sign. At the very moment, as it were, when nature’s

elements are threatening another deluge, the signal of heaven’s clemency is

hung out upon the watery sky to rebuke the fears of men. Another token of

special kindness on the part of God.

4. A suggestive sign — suggestive of the covenant of grace. Possibly this

was the chief reason why the rainbow was selected as the sign of the

covenant; a further display of kindness on the part of God.

VII. THE PERPETUITY OF THE COVENANT.

1. To eternity (v. 16). In so far as it was a spiritual covenant with the

believing Church, it was designed to be unto, as it had actually been from,

everlasting.

2. For perpetual generations (v. 12). In so far as it was a providential

covenant with the race, it was designed to continue to the end of time.

LESSONS:

1. The exceeding riches of Divine grace in dealing with men by

way of a covenant.

2. The exceeding faithfulness of God in adhering to His covenant,

notwithstanding man’s sinfulness and provocation.

3. The exceeding hopefulness of man’s position in being placed

beneath a covenant of mercy.

17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which

I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant. Murphy

thinks that God here directed the patriarch's attention to an actual rainbow;

it seems more natural to conclude that from the beginning of the interview

(ch. 8:20) the ark, altar, and worshippers were encircled by its variegated

arch. Kalisch compares with the rainbow the other signs which God

subsequently appended to His covenants as, e.g.:

· circumcision (ch.17:11),

· the passover (Exodus 12:13),

· the sabbath (ibid. 31:13).

The Noachic covenant being universal, the sign was also universal -

"τέρας μερόπων ἀνθρώπων - teras meropon anthropon - (I1, 11:27),

a sign to men of many tongues. The later covenants being limited to Israel,

their signs were local and provisional, and have now been supplanted

by the higher symbolism of the Christian Church, viz:

· baptism,

· the Lord's Supper, and

· the Christian sabbath.

Which I have established. The different verbs used in this passage in

connection with בְּרִית may be here brought together.

1. נָתַן (v. 12) representing the covenant as a gift of Divine grace.

2. קוּס (Hiph.; vs. 9, 11, 17) exhibiting the covenant as something which

God has both caused to stand and raised up when fallen.

3. זָכַר (v. 15) depicting the covenant as always present to the Divine mind.

Tuch, Stahelin, and Delitzsch detect an idiosyncrasy of the Elohist in using

the first and second of these verbs instead of כָּרַת, the favorite expression

of the Jehovist. But כָּרַת is used by the Elohist in ch. 21:27, 32, while in

Deuteronomy 4:18 the Jehovist uses הֵקִיס. Between me and all flesh

that is upon the earth.

The New Noachic Covenant Established (vs. 8-17)

I. IT IS A COVENANT OF LIFE. It embraces all the posterity of Noah, i.e.

it is:

1. The new foundation on which humanity rests.

2. It passes through man to all flesh, to all living creatures.

3. The sign of it, the rainbow in the cloud, is also the emblem of the

salvation which may be said to be typified in the deliverance of Noah and

his family.

4. The background is the same element wherewith the world was

destroyed, representing the righteousness of God as against the sin of man.

On that righteousness God sets the sign of love, which is produced by the

rays of light — the sun being the emblem of Divine goodness — radiating

from the infinite center in the glorious Father of all. “And it shall come to

pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the

cloud.”

II. GOD’S REVELATION SET BEFORE OUR FAITH.

1. It is waiting to be recognized. When we place ourselves in right relation

to the revelations and promises of Jehovah we can always see the bow on

the cloud of sense, on events — bright compassion on the darkest

providence.

2. There is an interdependence between the objective and subjective. The

rainbow is the natural result of an adjustment between the sun, the earth,

the cloud falling in rain, and man, the beholder. Take the earth to represent

the abiding laws of man’s nature and God’s righteousness, the falling

cloud to represent the condemnation and punishment of human sin, the sun

the revealed love and mercy of God sending forth its beams in the midst of

the dispensation of judgment; then let there be faith in man to look up and

rejoice in that which is set before him, and he will behold the rainbow of

the covenant even on the very background of the condemnation.

III. TRANSFIGURED RIGHTEOUSNESS IN REDEMPTION. The

cross at once condemnation and life. The same righteousness which once

destroyed the earth is manifested in Christ Jesus — “righteousness unto all

and upon all them that believe.” (Romans 3:22)

IV. UNION OF GOD AND MAN. God Himself is said to look upon the

sign of the covenant that He may remember. So man looking and God

looking to the same pledge of salvation. “God was in Christ reconciling

the world unto Himself.” (II Corinthians 5:19) Their reconciliation

is complete and established.

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and

Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. And the sons of Noah,

that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, who are here

again mentioned as the heads of the nations into which the family of man

developed, the writer having described the important modifications made

upon the law of nature and the covenant of grace, and being now about to

proceed with the onward course of human history. The present section,

extending to v. 27, is usually assigned to the Jehovistic author (Tuch,Bleek,

Kalisch, Colenso, Kuenen), though by Davidson it is ascribed to a so-called

redactor, with the exception of the present clause, which is recognized as the

Jehovist's contribution to the story. The ground of this apportionment is the

introduction of the name Jehovah in v. 26 (q.v.), and certain traces throughout

the paragraph of the style of writing supposed to be peculiar to the supplementer.

And Ham is the father of Canaan. Kena'an, the depressed or low one; either

the Lowlander or inhabitant of a tow coast country, as opposed to the loftier

regions (Aram); from kana , to be low, depressed, in situation, as of land

(Gesenius); or more probably the servile one in spirit (Furst, Murphy, Keil,

Lange). The reason for the insertion of this notice here, and of the similar

one in v. 22, was obviously to draw attention to the circumstance, not "that

the origin of Israel's ascendancy and of Canaan's degradation dates so far

back as the family of the second founder of the human race," as if the writer's

standpoint were long subsequent to the conquest (Kalisch), but that, "as Israel

was now going to possess the land of Canaan, they might know that now was the

time when the curse of Canaan and his posterity should take place" (Wilier).

19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth

overspread. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole

earth - i. e. the earth's population (compare ch. 11:1; 19:31) - overspread.

More correctly, dispersed themselves abroad. Διεοπάρησαν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν -

Dieoparaesan epi pasan taen gaen - dispersed over the whole earth - (Septuagint):

disseminatum est omne genus hominum (Vulgate).

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

And Noah began to be an husbandman. Literally, a man of the ground.

Vir terror (Vulgate); ἄνθρωπος γεωργὸς γῆς - anthropos georgos gaes -

a earth husbandman (Septuagint); Chald., נְּבַר פָלַח בְּאַרְעָא = vir co-lens terram;

agriculturae dediturus. Compare:

· Joshua 5:4, "a man of war;"

· II Samuel 16:7, "a man of blood;"

· ch. 46:32, "a man of cattle;"

· Exodus 4:10, "a man of words."

And he planted a vineyard. So Murphy, Wordsworth, Kalisch. Keil, Delitzsch,

and Lange regard ish ha Adamah, with the article, as in apposition to Noah, and

read, "And Noah, the husbandman, began and planted a vineyard," i.e. caepit

plantare (cf. Gesenius, 'Gram.,' 142, 3; Glass, Sacrae Philologiae, lib. 3. tr. 3.

can. 34). Neither interpretation presupposes that husbandry and vine

cultivation were now practiced for the first time. That Armenia is a wine-

growing country is testified by Xenophon ('Anab.,' 4:4, 9). That the vine was

abundantly cultivated in Egypt is evident from representations on the

monuments, as well as from Scriptural allusions. The Egyptians say that

Osiris, the Greeks that Dionysus, the Romans that Saturn, first taught men

the cultivation of the tree and the use of its fruit.

21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered

within his tent. And he drank of the wine. יַיִן; "perhaps so called from

bubbling up and fermenting;" connected with יָוַן (Gesenius). Though the

first mention of wine in Scripture, it is scarcely probable that the natural

process of fermentation for so many centuries escaped the notice of the

enterprising Cainites, or even of the Sethites; that, "though grapes had

been in use before this, wine had not been extracted from them" (Murphy);

or that Noah was unacquainted with the nature and effects of this intoxicating

liquor (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Keil, Lunge). The article before יַיִן indicates

that the patriarch was "familiar with the use and treatment" of the grape

(Kalisch); and Moses does not say this was the first occasion on which

the patriarch tasted the fermented liquor (Calvin, Wordsworth). And was

drunken. The verb שָׁכַר (whence shechar, strong drink, Numbers 28:7),

to drink to the full, very often signifies to make oneself drunken, or

simply to be intoxicated as the result of drinking; and that which the

Holy Spirit here reprobates is not the partaking of the fruit of the vine,

but the drinking so as to be intoxicated thereby. Since the sin of Noah

cannot be ascribed to ignorance, it is perhaps right, as well as charitable,

to attribute it to age and inadvertence. Six hundred years old at the time

of the Flood, he must have been considerably beyond this when Ham saw

him overtaken in his fault, since Canaan was Ham's fourth son (ch. 10:6),

and the first was not born till after the exit from the ark (ch. 8:18). But from

whatever cause induced, the drunkenness of Noah was not entirely guiltless;

it was sinful in itself, and led to further shame. And he was uncovered.

Literally, he uncovered himself. Hithpael of גָּלַה, to make naked, which

more correctly indicates the personal guilt of the patriarch than the

Authorized Version, or the Septuagint, ἐγυμνώθη - egumnothae -

stripped naked. That intoxication tends to sensuality compare the cases of:

· Lot (ch.19:33),

· Ahasuerus (Esther 1:10-11),

· Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1-6).

Within his tent. Ἐν τῷ οἴκῷ αὐτοῦ - en to oiko autou - in his house. (Septuagint).

22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told

his two brethren without. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness.

Pudenda, from a root (עָרָה) signifying to make naked, from a kindred root to

which (עָרם) comes the term expressive of the nakedness of Adam and Eve

after eating the forbidden fruit (ch. 3:7). The sin of Ham - not a trifling and

unintentional transgression" (Von Bohlen) - obviously lay not in seeing

what perhaps he may have come upon unexpectedly, but

(1) in wickedly rejoicing in what he saw, which, considering who he

was that was overcome with wine, - "the minister of salvation to men,

and the chief restorer of the world," - the relation in which he stood to

Ham, - that of father, - the advanced age to which he had now come,

and the comparatively mature years of Ham himself, who was

"already more than a hundred years old," should have filled him with

sincere sorrow; "sed nunquam vino victum pattern filius risisset, nisi

prius ejecisset animo illam reverentiam et opinionem, quae in liberis

de parentibus ex mandato Dei existere debet" (Luther); and:

(2) in reporting it, doubtless with a malicious purpose, to his brethren.

And told his two brethren without. Possibly inviting them to come and

look upon their father's shame.

23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their

shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their

father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their

father’s nakedness. And Shem and Japheth took a garment. Literally, the

robe, i.e. which was at hand (Keil, Lange); the simlah, which was an outer

cloak (Deuteronomy 10:18; 1I Samuel 21:10; Isaiah 3:6-7), in which, at night,

persons wrapped themselves (Deuteronomy 22:17). Sometimes the letters

are transposed, and the word becomes salmah (cf. Exodus 22:8; Micah 2:8).

And laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backwards, and covered

the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they

saw not the nakedness of their father; thereby evincing "the regard they

paid to their father's honor and their own modesty (Calvin).

24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had

done unto him. And Noah awoke from his wine. I.e. the effects of his wine

(compare 1 Samuel 1:14; 25:37); ἐξένηψε - exenaepse - awake, be alert, be

sober (Septuagint); "became fully conscious of his condition" (T. Lewis).

And knew. By inspiration (Alford); more probably by making inquiries as to

the reason of the simlah covering him. What his younger son. Literally, his son,

the little one, i.e. the youngest son (Willet, Murphy, Wordsworth, T. Lewis,

Alford, Candlish), or the younger son (Keil, Bush, Karisch); compare ch.5:32.

Generally believed to have been Ham, though by many Canaan is understood

(Aben Ezra, Theodoret, Procopius, Scaliger, Poole, Jamieson, Inglis, Lewis).

Origen mentions a tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of Noah, and

told it to his father. Wordsworth, following Chrysostom, believes Canaan

may have been an accomplice. 'The Speaker's Commentary' thinks it would

solve the difficulty which attaches to the cursing of Canaan.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be

unto his brethren. 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 (ch. 4:11). Colenso notices that all the curses belong to the Jehovistic

writer; but see ch. 49:6-7, 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:

· 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:

· 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:

· 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.

o Not Ham, the father of Canaan (Arabic Version); nor

o all the sons of Ham, though concentrated in Canaan

(Havernick, Keil, Murphy); but

o 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.

· Because God had preserved him in the ark (Jewish commentators).

· Because if Ham had been mentioned all his other sons would have

been implicated (Pererius, Lange).

· Because the sin of Ham was comparatively trifling (Bohlen).

For the cursing of Canaan instead of Ham, it has been urged:

· 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!

· That he was the real perpetrator of the crime (Aben Ezra, Procopius,

Poole, Jamieson, Lewis).

· That thereby the greatness of Ham's sin was evinced (Calvin).

· That Canaan was already walking in the steps of his father's impiety

(Ambrose, Mercerus, Keil).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" (see Gesenius, § 119). I.e. "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);

παῖς οἰκἑτης - pais oiketaes - child household slave - (Septuagint), 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 Shem (Joshua 9:23), those that remained being

subsequently reduced by Solomon (1 Kings 9:20-21); while the Phoenicians,

along with the Carthaginians and Egyptians, who all belonged to the family

of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and

Romans (Keil).

26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall

be his servant. And he said - not "Blessed of Jehovah, my God, be Shem"

(Jamieson), as might have been anticipated (this, equally with the omission of

Ham's name, lifts the entire patriarchal utterance out of the region of mere

personal feeling), but - Blessed - בָּרוּך when applied to God signifies an

ascription of praise (compare Psalm 144:15; Ephesians 1:3); when applied to

man, an invocation of good (compare ch. 14:19-20; Psalm 128:1; Hebrews 7:6) -

be the Lord God - literally, Jehovah, Elohim of Shem (compare ch. 24:27);

Jehovah being the proper personal name of God, of whom it is predicated

that He is the Elohim of Shem; equivalent to a statement not simply that

Shem should enjoy "a rare and transcendent," "Divine or heavenly," blessing

(Calvin), or "a most abundant blessing, reaching its highest point in the

promised Seed" (Luther); but that Jehovah, the one living and true God, should

be his God, and that the knowledge and practice of the true religion should

continue among his descendants, with, perhaps, a hint that the promised

Seed should spring from his loins (OEeolampadius, Willet, Murphy, Keil) -

of Shem. In the name Shem (name, renown) there may lie an allusion to the

spiritual exaltation and advancement of the Semitic nations (see ch. 5:32).

And Canaan shall be his servant. לָמו = לָהֶס (Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic),

i.e. the two brothers (Delitzsch), their descendants (Knobel, Keil),

Shem and Jehovah (Bush); or more probably - לו, as a collective singular

(cf. Gesenius, § 103, 2), i.e. Shem, including his descendants (Septuagint,

αὐτοῦ - autou - his; Kalisch, Lange, Murphy).

27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem;

and Canaan shall be his servant. God. Elohim. If vs. 18-27 are Jehovistic

(Tuch, Bleek, Colenso, et alii), why Elohim? Is this a proof that the Jehovistic

document was revised by the Elohistic author, as the presence of Jehovah in

any so-called Elohistic section is regarded as an interpolation by the

supplementer? To obviate this inference Davidson assigns vs. 20-27 to his

redactor. But the change of name is sufficiently explained when we remember

that "Jehovah, as such, never was the God of Japheth's descendants, and that

the expression would have been as manifestly improper if applied to him as

it is in its proper place applied to Shem" (Quarry, p. 393). Shall enlarge Japheth.

יַפְתְּ לְיֶפֶת; literally, shall enlarge or make room for the one that spreads abroad;

or, "may God concede an ample space to Japheth" (Gesenius). "Wide let God

make it for Japheth" (Keil). "God give enlargement to Japheth" (Lange).

So Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic. The words form a paronomasia

(a play on words, a pun), both the verb and the noun being connected with the

root פָתָה, to spread abroad; Hiph., to cause to lie open, hence to make room for,

and refer to the widespread diffusion and remarkable prosperity of the Japhetic

nations. The familiar interpretation which renders "God will persuade Japheth,

the persuadable," i.e. incline his heart by the gospel so that he may dwell in the

tents of Shem (Junins, Vatablus, Calvin, Willet, Ainsworth), is discredited

by the facts

(1) that the verb never means to persuade, except in a bad sense (compare

1 Kings 22:20), and

(2) that in this sense it is never followed by לְ, but always by the accusative

(see Gesenius, sub. nom.; cf. Bush, p. 109). The fulfillment of the prophecy

is apparent from the circumstance that "praeter Europam (εὐρώπη - europae -

europe;wide, extensive) "maximam Asiae pattern, totum demique novum

orbem, veluti immensae maguitudinis auctarium, Japheto posterique ejus

in perpetuam possessionem obtigisse" (Fuller, ' Sac. Miscel., lib. 2. c. 4,

quoted by Glass); compare ch. 10:2-5, in which Japheth is given as the

progenitor of fourteen peoples, to which are added the inhabitants of the

lands washed by the sea. The expansive power of Japheth "refem 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"

(Murphy). And he - not Elohim (Philo., Theodoret, Onkelos, Dathe,

Baumgarten, et alii), which

(a) substantially repeats the blessing already given to Shem, and

(b) would introduce an allusion to the superiority of Shem's blessing

in what the context requires should be an unrestricted benediction

of Japheth; but Japheth (Calvin, Rosenmüller, Delitzsch, Keil,

Lange, Kaliseh, Murphy, Wordsworth, 'Speaker's Commentary') -

shall dwell. יִשְׁכַן, from שָׁכַן, to dwell; used of God inhabiting:

(α) the heavens (Isaiah 57:15),

(β) dwelling in the bush (Deuteronomy 30:16),

(γ) residing, or causing His name to dwell, in the tabernacle

(Deuteronomy 12:11);

hence supposed to favor the idea that Elohim is the subject; but it was

as Jehovah (not Elohim) that God abode between the cherubim (Exodus

40:34). In the tents of Shem. Not the tents of celebrity (Gesenius,

Vater, Michaelis, De Wette, Knobel), but the tents of the Shemitic

races, with allusion not to their subjugation by the Japhethites (Clericus,

Von Bohlen, Bochart), which would not be in keeping with the former

blessing pronounced upon them (Murphy), but to their subsequent

contiguity (near, touching; abutting) to, and even commingling with,

but especially to their participation in the religious privileges of,

the Shemites (the Fathers, Targum Jonathan, Hisronymus, Calvin,

Keil, Lange, 'Speaker's Commentary,' Murphy, Candlish).

The fulfillment of the prophecy is too obvious to call for illustration.

And Canaan shall be his servant

28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

I.e. to the fifty-eighth year of the life of Abram, and was thus in all probability

a witness of the building of the tower of Babel, and of the consequent dispersion

of mankind.

29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Tuch, Bleek, and Colenso connect these verses with v. 17, as the proper

continuation of the Elohist's work.

The Future Unveiled (ch. 20-29

I. A PAGE FROM HUMAN HISTORY. The prominent figure an old man

(of 620 years or upwards) — always an object of interest, as one who has

passed through life’s vicissitudes, and worthy of peculiar honor, especially

if found walking in the paths of righteousness and peace; an old saint who

had long been distinguished for the elevation of his piety, who had long

maintained his fidelity to God in the midst of evil times, who had just

enjoyed a special deliverance at the hand of God, and who up to the period

referred to in our text had brought neither stain upon his piety nor cloud

upon his name; the second head of the human family, and in a manner also

the second head of the Church of God; an old disciple, who probably had

seen Seth, the son of Adam, and walked with Enoch, and spoken with

Methuselah, and who lived, as the Scripture tells us, to the days of Abram;

clearly one of the most distinguished figures that, looking back, one is able

to detect upon the canvas of time. Well, in connection with this venerable

patriarch we learn:

1. That he engaged in a highly honorable occupation.

(a) It was to his credit that he had an occupation. Being an old man, he

might have reasoned that his working days were done, and that the evening

of life might as well be spent in leisure and meditation. Having three

stalwart sons, he might have deemed it proper to look to them for aid in his

declining years. And knowing himself to be an object of Heaven’s peculiar

care, he might have trusted God would feed him without his working, since

He had saved him without his asking. But from all these temptations — to

idleness, to dependence, to presumption — Noah was delivered, and

preferred; as all good Christians should do, to labor to the last, working

while it is called today, to depend upon themselves rather than their friends

and neighbors, and to expect God’s assistance rather when they try to

help themselves than when they leave it all to Him. Then,

(b) The calling he engaged in was an honest one. He was a man of the

soil, and he planted a vineyard (see Exposition on vine cultivation). God’s

people should be careful in selecting honest trades and professions for

themselves and their children (Romans 12:17). No social status or

public estimation, or profitable returns can render that employment

honorable which, either in its nature or in the manner of its carrying or,

violates the law of God; while that calling has a special glory in itself and a

special value in the sight of Heaven which, however humble and

unremunerative, respects the rights of men and the rules of God.

2. That he indulged in a perfectly legitimate gratification. “He drank of

the wine.” There was nothing wrong in Noah eating of the ripe grapes

which grew upon his vines, or drinking of their juice when transformed into

wine (compare 1 Corinthians 9:7). The sinfulness of making fermented liquors

cannot be established so long as fermentation is a natural process for the

preservation of the produce of the grape, and Scripture, in one set of passages,

speaks of its beneficial influence upon man’s physical system (Judges 9:13;

Psalm 104:15; Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23), and God Himself employs it

as a symbol of the highest and choicest blessings, both temporal and spiritual

(ch. 27:28, 37; Proverbs 9:2; Isaiah 25:6; Matthew 26:28-29), and Christ

made it at the marriage feast of Cana (John 2:9-10). Nor is the drinking of

wines and other fermented liquors condemned in Scripture as a violation

of the law of God. That there are special seasons when abstinence from this

as well as other gratifications of a physical kind is a duty (compare

Leviticus 10:9; Judges 13:4, 14; Ezekiel 44:21; Daniel 1:5, 8, 16;

Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 10:28), and that it is competent

to any Christian, for the sake of Iris weaker brethren, or as a means of

advancing his own spiritual life, or for the glory of God, to renounce his

liberty in respect of drinks, no intelligent person will doubt. But that total

abstinence is imperatively required of every one is neither asserted in

Scripture nor was it taught by the example of Christ (Matthew 11:19),

and to enforce it upon Christian men as a term of communion is to impose

on them a yoke of bondage which Christ has not sanctioned, and to

supplant Christian liberty by bodily asceticism.

3. That he fell beneath a pitifully sad humiliation.

(a) He drank to the extent of intoxication. Whatever extenuations may be

offered for the action of the patriarch, it cannot be regarded in any other

light than a sin., Considering the age he had come to, the experience he had

passed through, the position which he occupied as the head of the race and

the father of the Church, he ought to have been specially upon his guard.

While permitting man a moderate indulgence in the fruit of the vine, the

word of God especially condemns the sin of drunkenness (compare

Proverbs 23:20; Isaiah 5:11, 22; Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians

5:11; 6:10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:8).

(b) His immodesty. The veil of modesty in which God designs that every

sinful human being should be wrapped should be jealously guarded from

infringement by any action either of ourselves or others.

Lessons:

1. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians

10:12). Remember Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Peter.

2. “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit”

(Ephesians 5:18). There is scarcely a sin to which intoxication may not

lead; there is no infallible cure for drunkenness but being filled with the

Spirit.

3. “Be sure thy sin will find thee out” (Numbers 32:23). “There is

nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid that shall not be

known.” (Luke 12:2)

II. A REVELATION OF HUMAN CHARACTER. On the threshold of

the new world, like the Lord Jesus Christ in the opening of the gospel

dispensation (Luke 2:35), the patriarch Noah appears to have been set

for the fall and rising again of many, and for a sign to be spoken against

that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed. All unconsciously to

him his vine-planting and wine-drinking become the occasion of unveiling

the different characters of his sons in respect of:

1. Filial piety, which Shem and Japheth remarkably displayed, but of which

Ham, the youngest son, appears to have been destitute. There was nothing

sinful in Ham’s having witnessed what should never have been exposed to

view, and there is no reason to credit any of the idle rabbinical legends

which allege that Ham perpetrated a particular outrage upon his father; but

Ham was manifestly wanting in that filial reverence and honor which were

due to his aged parent, in that he gazed with delight upon the melancholy

spectacle of his father’s shame- in singular contrast to the respectful and

modest behavior of Shem and Japheth, who “went with their faces

backward,” so that “they saw not their father’s nakedness.”

2. Tender charity. In addition to the mocking eye which gloated over the

patriarch’s infirmity, there was present in the heart of Ham an evil and

malicious spirit, which led him to inflict another and a severer indignity

upon his father’s fame. The faults of even bad men are required by religion

to be covered up rather than paraded in public view. Much more the

indiscretions, failings, and sins of good men. Most of all the faults of a

father. But, alas, instead of sorrowing for his father’s overthrow, Ham

obviously took pleasure in it; instead of charitably trying to excuse the old

man, nay, without even waiting to ascertain whether an explanation of his

conduct might be possible, he appears to have put the worst construction

on it; instead of doing what he could to hide his father’s sin and shame, he

rushes forth and makes it known to his brothers. But these brothers, with

another spirit, without offering any apology for their father’s error, perhaps

instinctively perceiving it to be altogether unjustifiable, take the first loose

garment they can find, and, with a beautiful modesty as well as a becoming

piety, casting it around their shoulders, enter their father’s presence with

their faces backward, and cover up his prostrate form. Let the incident

remind us:

(a) That if nothing can excise a father’s falling into sin, much more can

nothing justify a son for failing in respect towards his father.

(b) That it is a sure sign of depravity in a child when he mocks at a parent’s

infirmities and publishes a parent’s faults.

(c) That filial piety ever seeks to extenuate and to hide rather than to

aggravate and blaze abroad a parent’s weaknesses and sins.

(d) That children in the same family may be distinguished by widely

different dispositions.

(e) That a son may have pious parents and experience many providential

mercies for their sakes, and yet be at heart a child of the devil.

(f) That that which makes one son differ from another in the same family is

Divine grace; and

(g) that the characters of children, and of men in general, are oftentimes

revealed at the most unexpected times, and by the most improbable events.

III. A DISCLOSURE OF HUMAN DESTINY. Awaking from his wine,

the patriarch became aware of what had taken place. Discerning in the

conduct of his sons an indication of divergence in their characters,

recognizing in their different characters a repetition of what had taken

place at the commencement of the first era of the world’s history, viz., the

division of mankind into a holy and a wicked line, foreseeing also, through

the help of inspiration, the development of the world’s population into

three different tribes or races, he foretells, acting in all under the Spirit s

guidance, the future destinies that should await them. His utterance takes

the form of a prediction, in which he declares:

1. The degradation of Canaan. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants

shall he be to his brethren.

(a) So far as Ham was concerned this judgment was severe, as being

imposed upon his youngest and probably his best beloved son; appropriate

— he for whose sake it had been inflicted having been his father’s youngest

son; merciful, as falling not on all his race, but only upon one son and his

descendants. God’s judgments upon sinful men are always

proportioned in severity to the guilt which brings them, adjusted to the

natures of the sins for which they come, and mixed with mercy in the

experience of the persons on whom they fall.

(b) So far as Canaan was concerned the doom of servitude was sovereignty

imposed. There is no evidence that Canaan was at all connected with the

incident that happened in his grandfather’s tent. That the penalty of his

father’s offence was made to fall on him of all his father’s sons was in

virtue of that high prerogative which belongs to God alone of assigning to

men and nations their lots on earth (compare Psalm 75:7; Isaiah 41:2;

Daniel 4:35; 5:19; Acts 17:26). Richly merited. Whether Canaan

had begun by this time to display any of the dispositions of his father

cannot certainly be known; but in after years, when the prophecy was

nearing its accomplishment, it is well known that the peculiar sins for

which the Canaanites were destroyed or subjected to bondage were allied

to those which are referred to in the text (see Leviticus 18:27).

Exactly fulfilled by the subjugation of the land of Canaan under Joshua and

David, though here it should be noted that the enslavement of the African

Negro, who, though a Hamite, is not a Canaanite, was a daring defiance of

those limits within which the supreme Judge had confined the sentence

pronounced upon the Hamite race. Mercifully cancelled by the later

promise which was given to Abraharh, and is now fulfilled in the

incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ — of a seed-in whom all the families

of the earth should be blessed (ch. 22:18).

2. The exaltation of Shem. “Blessed be Jehovah, the Elohim of Shem,”

in which description was the promise of a threefold exaltation.

(a) To supremacy in the Church, as being possessed of the knowledge of

the true religion, as being enriched with the fullness of blessing that is in

Jehovah Elohim, as being the Divinely-appointed medium through which

the first promise of the woman’s seed was to be fulfilled, and He was to

come whose name should be above every name.

(b) To dominion in the world. In virtue of the religious ascendancy

conferred upon him, Shem was to be possessed of power to influence other

nations for good, and in particular to receive into his service, for education

as well as for assistance, the descendants of Canaan.

(c) To renown throughout all time. As much as this perhaps is hinted at in

the name Shem; and to this day the glory which encircled the Shemitie

nations of antiquity has not faded, but continues to shine down the

centuries with undiminished luster.

3. The enlargement of Japheth. “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall

dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.”

A promise of:

1. Territorial expansion. While the Shemite tribes should remain in a

manner concentrated in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, the

Japhethites should spread themselves abroad westward as the pioneers of

civilization.

2. Spiritual enrichment, by being brought ultimately to share in the

religious privileges and blessings of the Shemites — a prediction

which has been abundantly fulfilled by the admission of the Gentiles

to the Christian Church.

3. Civilizing influence. As Canaan was subjected to Shem in order, while

he served, to be instructed in the faith of his master, so does he seem to

have been placed beneath the sway of Japheth, that Japheth might lead

him forth to a participation of the peculiar blessings which he has

been commissioned to bestow upon the other nations of the earth.

The Threefold Distribution of the Human Race (vs. 18-29)

\Into the Shemitic, Hamitic, and Japhetic families. The fall of Noah was

through wine; not, indeed, a forbidden product of the earth, but, like the

fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, representing a tremendous

responsibility.

I. THE FERTILITY OF SIN. It was out of drunkenness that the

widespread curse of the Hamitic nations came forth. And the drunkenness

is closely connected with other sins:

· shameful degradation both of father and son,

· alienation of brethren, and

· human slavery.

What a picture of the forthcoming results of intemperance and self-indulgence!

II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE BLESSING AND THE CURSE

IN THEIR WORKING OUT. Noah’s prediction of the blessing on Shem

and Japheth and the curse upon Ham may be taken as an outline of the

religious history of the world.

1. The Shemitic races are the source of religious light to the rest. “Blessed

be the Lord God of Shem.” “Jehovah,” the Shemitic revelation, is the

foundation of all other.

2. The Japhetic races are the great colonizers and populators of the world,

overflowing their own boundaries, dwelling in the tents of Shem, both as

inquirers after Shemitic light and in friendly co-operation with Shemitic

civilization.

3. The Hamitic races are servants of servants unto their brethren, partly by

their degradation, but partly also by their achievements. The Phoenician,

Assyrian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Canaanitish races, although by no

means always in a lower political state than the rest of the world, have yet

been subdued by Japhetic and Shemitic conquerors, and handed down their

wealth and acquirements to the Northern, Western, and Eastern world.

III. THE RENOVATION OF THE EARTH UNDER THE NEW

COVENANT. After the Flood Noah lived the half-week of centuries, and

thus laid firmly the foundations of a new earth. Yet, prolonged as was that

life of him who had “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (ch. 6:8), it came

to an end at last. He died. The one became the three.

1. The blessing handed on. The type of rest and comfort was spread

through the redeemed earth. And from henceforth we have to deal not

with the small beginnings of the rescued race, but with the vast

multitude of human beings.

2. New sphere of trial. Under the light of the new covenant again the new

race were placed upon their trial, that again the redeeming mercy of Him

who willeth not the death of His creatures may be made manifest in the

midst of the teeming earth, with its threefold humanity, spreading

eastward, westward, northward, and southward. (And from this

multitude will enter into heaven and eternal life which come from

all over the world - “And they shall come from the east, and from

the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down

in the kingdom of heaven.” (Lukw 13:29 - CY - 2024)

.

"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

This material can be found at:

http://www.adultbibleclass.com

If this exposition is helpful, please share with others.