Faithlife Study Bible (Biblia.com)

Home

Library

Search for:

9:1–17 God blesses Noah (as a representative of humanity), establishes rules, and institutes a covenant. In the process, He gives people permission to kill and eat animals for food, provided they do not consume the blood (Gen 9:3–4). Killing other people, however, is forbidden (vv. 5–6). In the covenant that God institutes, He promises again to humanity and all creation that He won’t destroy all life again by a flood (vv. 8–17).

Covenant LRC:G111

Genesis 9:1–17 NAC:G111:26

Genesis 9:1–17 Genesis

9:1 his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (see 6:10).

fill the earth A repeat of the mandate to procreate and fill the earth (1:28; 8:17).

God places His blessing on the dispersing of humanity as originally intended. This indicates a regeneration of human life and society on the cleansed earth. See note on 8:17.

9:2 Into your hand they shall be given Emphasizes humanity’s authoritative role as stewards of the animal kingdom. Animal flesh is now permitted as food for humanity. This phrase links eating meat with the command to multiply and have dominion, suggesting that the practice of eating meat is not a result of the fall (ch. 3), but an outgrowth of the flood event that is consistent with the original stewardship of humanity (1:28–29; compare 4:4).

Eating Meat LRC:G111

9:3 you, I now give you everything Earlier, God designated only the plants as food for humanity (1:28–29); now He permits the animals to be killed for food, but He prohibits the consumption of blood (v. 4).

9:4 blood Before animal flesh can be consumed, it must be properly drained of blood. This suggests that the prohibition of consuming blood predates Israel’s law (though it is repeated in the law; Lev 17:11, 14).

An ancient Near Eastern person could clearly see that a person or animal would die without blood. In a wide range of ancient Near Eastern cultures, consumption of blood was considered a means of appropriating the life force of one’s victim—and perhaps even its attributes. This prohibition teaches that only God bestows life.

Blood DOT: P

9:5 your lifeblood The ensuing context shows that this phrase means human life, not the blood itself.

from every animal I will require it Whether human life is taken by an animal or human, there will be a penalty. The wording clearly affirms the sanctity of human life in God’s eyes.

each man to his brother The phrasing emphasizes the close relationship between human beings and the value that should be given to each person.

9:6 by humankind his blood shall be shed Establishes the principle of capital punishment as the consequence for the intentional murder of an innocent human life. This crime results in the forfeiture of one’s own life—the offender can no longer be protected by the principle that safeguards innocent human life.

This principle is based on people being divine imagers—representations of God on earth (Gen 1:27). Taking an innocent human life was viewed as murdering God in effigy. Later, Mosaic Law (as primarily seen Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) made capital punishment mandatory for murder, allowing no alternative form of punishment (see Num 35:31).

Capital Punishment LRC:G111

Image of God DOT: P

The Image of God

9:7 swarm on the earth This command was disobeyed after the flood when the people of the earth migrated to build a city rather than multiply and disperse (Gen 11:1–9).

9:9–13 The covenant Yahweh gives here is established with humanity, with every living creature, and with the earth itself. Genesis 8:22 indicates that God’s promise to refrain from destruction (and hence this covenant) will endure indefinitely until that time when God decides to create a new heaven and new earth (compare 2 Pet 3:12–13).

9:9 my covenant A covenant is either a contract or—when only one party pledges anything—a promise. The first-person language of this covenant shows that this is a unilateral promise or divine charter. It does not depend on Noah; God’s integrity and power serves as its basis.

Covenant DOT: P

Covenant AYBD

Covenants in the Old Testament Table

9:10 to all the animals of the earth God’s covenant promise extends to all living beings, not only Noah and his descendants. Noah receives the covenant promise on behalf of all living creatures.

9:11 never again The substance of the promise is that God will never destroy the earth with a flood again. To make the point, God states the promise twice in this verse. Compare note on Gen 8:22.

9:12 the sign of the covenant The sign serves as a reminder of the promise or as a tangible guarantee of God’s commitment to keep the promise (compare 17:11; Exod 31:16–17).

Genesis 9:12 NAC:G111:26

9:13 My bow The Hebrew word used here, qesheth, is most frequently used of an archer’s bow. The mention of a cloud indicates it is a rainbow, but the military connotation may still be present. The rainbow may symbolically signify God’s war bow—God’s wrath via water has ended and He has hung up His bow.

Such imagery appears in at least one ancient Near Eastern creation story—the Babylonian Enuma Elish, where Marduk hangs his war bow in the clouds after defeating the sea dragon, Tiamat. Yet the flood account in Genesis is not a creation text like the Enuma Elish.

However, Genesis 1:6–8 describes the creation of a firmament (or solid dome) that served as a barrier between the waters above (which had been poured out on the earth in the flood) and the earth below. In this regard, the bow of v. 13 may represent this curved dome. Since the bow is connected to God’s promise to never destroy the earth again, the promise may indicate that the barrier holding back the catastrophic waters will never give way again. As the domed firmament restrains the flood waters above the sky in ancient cosmology, so the rainbow stands as a guarantee of the resilience of the firmament dome in protection of humanity.

A Bow or a Rainbow LRC:G111

9:15 I will remember The rainbow will serve as a continual reminder of God’s commitment. See note on 8:1.

9:16 the everlasting covenant The Hebrew phrase used here, berith-olam, is often used to describe covenants between God and His people. These everlasting covenants are also frequently linked to special signs. The sign of this covenant is the rainbow (see vv. 12–13; note on v. 13).

God’s covenant with Abraham is also described as a berith-olam (17:7, 13, 19), with circumcision as the sign. The covenant between God and Israel is similarly called a berith-olam, and the sign is Israel’s obligation to observe the Sabbath (Exod 31:16). The prophets lament Israel’s sin of breaking the covenant (Isa 24:5), but the notion that it is a berith-olam provides the basis for their messages of hope and faith in Yahweh’s future deliverance (Isa 55:3; Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26).

Covenant DBI

Covenant DOT: P

9:18–29 This passage provides a narrative postscript to the flood story, describing how Noah settles into a life of agriculture.

Genesis 9:18–29 Genesis

Genesis 9:18–29 NAC:G111:26

9:18 Ham was the father of Canaan A reminder of the connection between Ham and Canaan; Canaan is cursed by Noah for Ham’s actions (Gen 9:22,25).

This account also serves to cast the Canaanites in a negative, shameful light. In that sense, the story resembles the account in 19:30–38, which provides a shameful explanation for the paternity of the Ammonites and Moabites.

9:20 a man of the ground The parallel to Adam is evident and signifies continuity with Adam’s original blessing and mandated task (see 2:15).

Taken together, the account of Noah’s birth (5:29), his deliverance from the flood, the repetition of the command to be fruitful and multiply (8:17), and this description of his occupation cast Noah as a type of new Adam: Creation finds renewal after the flood, and in many ways, the relationship between God and humanity begins anew.

9:21 became drunk The first mention of drunkenness in the Bible.

he exposed himself in the midst of his tent The ensuing context explains this as nakedness.

9:22–24 Two difficult interpretive issues arise in the incident between Ham and Noah: understanding the nature of Ham’s offense and making sense of why Ham’s son, Canaan, was cursed instead of Ham (see note on v. 25). The text of v. 22 may be literally rendered as “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father.” However, this could be an idiom—it may not be about Noah being nude, but an incident that greatly insults Noah. Ham’s offense could be explained as voyeurism, castration of Noah, sodomy, or incestuous rape of his mother.

The voyeurism view is often defended by what Ham’s brothers, Shem and Japheth, do in the wake of the incident—they walk backward into the tent and cover their father’s nakedness. This act doesn’t explain the offense, though; it simply shows their respect for their father. There is no ot prohibition against seeing one’s father naked, so this interpretation would have likely been foreign to the original reader; likewise, no such prohibition appears elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern law.

Against the idea that Ham’s offense was voyeurism, the Hebrew phrase which may be literally rendered “saw the nakedness” appears elsewhere in the ot referring to illicit sexual contact and intercourse. To “see [ra’ah in Hebrew] the nakedness [erwah in Hebrew]” of someone is used in the Law (Lev 18; 20) to prohibit certain sexual relations. This idiom suggests that Ham’s offense may have been of a sexual nature, perhaps homosexual rape of his father or paternal incest. However, no combination of the relevant Hebrew words—ra’ah (“see”), galah (“uncover”), and erwah (“nakedness”)—occurs in the ot in reference to homosexuality. The Hebrew phrase for “uncovering the nakedness of [a man]” actually refers to sexual intercourse with a man’s wife. For example, in a literal rendering of Lev 18:7, “the nakedness of your father” means “the nakedness of your mother”; in Lev 18:14, a literal rendering of “the nakedness of your father’s brother” is clarified as “his wife” and “your aunt” (see Lev 18:8; 20:11, 20, 21). Although the usual expression in Leviticus is to “uncover [galah in Hebrew] the nakedness,” both idioms are used in parallel in Lev 20:17. Therefore, Ham’s offense may have been maternal incest and the forcible rape of his mother. This explains the curse of Ham’s son that follows (see Gen 9:25–27; compare note on v. 25).

Genesis 9:22 NICOT Ge 1–17

Genesis 9:18–10:32 Genesis

Genesis 9:22 Genesis (JPS)

9:22 saw the nakedness of his father This act could be understood as either literal or metaphorical (idiomatic). If Ham looked in the tent and saw his father lying naked and did not cover him, he was dishonoring his father and making sport of his condition by telling his brothers. If the phrase was meant as an idiom, it could point to some sort of sexually related offense. See note on vv. 22–24.

Genesis 9:22 CCS:G111

Genesis 9:22 WBC Vol. 1

he told his two brothers outside See note on v. 25; note on vv. 22–24.

9:24 had done to him The language suggests that Ham’s offense was more than voyeurism (see note on vv. 22–24; compare note on v. 22).

Ham’s Offense LRC:G111

9:25 a slave of slaves he shall be Noah pronounces a curse on Canaan, not on Ham. Noah does this because Ham likely raped his mother to gain further inheritance (see note on vv. 22–24).

Ham’s crime of maternal incest would have been an attempt to usurp Noah’s position as leader of the family clan. This explains why Ham would announce what he had done to his brothers—he was asserting authority over them (v. 22). The fact that Canaan was cursed suggests that Canaan was the offspring of Ham’s sexual intercourse with Noah’s wife. The son bore the punishment for the crime of his father. The curse on Canaan forms the backdrop to the later antipathy between Israel and the Canaanites.

There are several instances in the ot of sexual intercourse being used to usurp authority. For example, Absalom’s public intercourse with his father’s concubines (2 Sam 15:20–23) was intended to show ownership of the king’s harem (and hence the kingship). David did the same with Saul’s concubines (2 Sam 12:8) as part of the transfer of authority. When Adonijah tried to acquire Abishag (1 Kgs 1:3–15; 2:17–22), the request was taken by Solomon as an attempted usurpation of his position (1 Kgs 2:22). Adonijah may have presumed that Abishag had been David’s sexual partner in old age, so taking her as his own wife may have been a devious attempt to regain the succession he had lost. Solomon responded to this treasonous move by executing Adonijah (1 Kgs 2:23–25).

Ham’s Sin but Canaan’s Curse LRC:G111

9:29 nine hundred and fifty years May or may not be intended literally. See Gen 5:5 and note.

	About Faithlife Study Bible Faithlife Study Bible (FSB) is your guide to the ancient world of the Old and New Testaments, with study notes and articles that draw from a wide range of academic research. FSB helps you learn how to think about interpretation methods and issues so that you can gain a deeper understanding of the text.
Copyright	Copyright 2012 Logos Bible Software.
Support Info	fsb

Table of Contents

About Faithlife Study Bible