We can divide this last chapter about Noah’s life in two parts: The verses 1-20 deal with God’s promise to Noah and mankinds, vs. 21-29 tell the story of Noah’s sin and the curse upon Ham.
Vs. 1-20 - There is a parallel between vs.1-3 of this chapter and ch. 1:28,29. In the verses 1-3 we read: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.’ ” And ch. 1:28-29 says: “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’ Then God said, ‘I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the
182 Eph. 5:1,2
whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for you.’ ” It is quite obvious what difference the fall into sin has made.
The command to be fruitful and to fill the earth is the same, but the relationship between man and the rest of the creation is no longer the same. Man is not the peaceful ruler anymore. The animals are no longer his friends, and he is no longer the friend of the animals. Man changed from vegetarian to omnivore.
The death of his fellow creatures, the animals, has become a necessity to stay alive, both spiritually and physically. Killing has become a way of life. The fact that God sanctions it does not make it good. It is an accommodation to the situation in which sin has changed the conditions. The blood of the animal will serve to cover his sin, and the meat will be his food.
Theologians are divided in their opinion about whether man ate meat before the fall or not. The Bible does not give any indication one way or another. It could be that the use of meat for food was practiced, but only officially sanctioned after the flood. But then we can ask the question as to whether the fear of man was upon the animals before the flood too. Adam Clarke suggests that dominion of the animals over man may have increased before the flood to the point where, had the flood not occurred, wild animals could have wiped out mankind. There is no way of knowing whether this is true. In the same vein we do not know whether cannibalism was practiced before the flood either! The verses 5, and 6 would surely leave this possibility open.
It strikes me, though, that through generations of use we have come to the point where we accept the killing of animals and the eating of their meat as normal, without often realizing how contrary to this is to the basic principles of creation. I think Gandhi was wrong in abstaining from eating meat, but he surely had a point which I can appreciate. Usually, vegetarianism is based on a denial of the existence of sin. The same goes for Schweitzer’s “Reverence for life.”183
Vs. 4 is clearly a prohibition to eat blood: “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” Evidently the Hebrew is difficult to translate here, and consequently different interpretations abound.
But the meaning is obvious that the blood of animals is not meant for food, since it has other purposes. I do not think it is merely a protection for the animal against human cruelty. In Leviticus, where this command to Noah is incorporated into the Mosaic law, we read: “ Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood; I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar;
it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”184 The idea seems to be that since animal blood is used to atone for sin, man is not allowed to use it for any other purpose.
The question remains what our interpretation of this prohibition should be now, after the death of Christ. Atonement by the blood of an animal was only a picture of the real atonement by the blood of Christ.
The writer to the Hebrews makes this clear, when he says: “Because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus....”185 We have the famous passage from the book of Acts. James is the spokesman of these words: “Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.”186
I take it that the reference to the preaching of the law of Moses is inserted as a testimony to the Jews, who were living all over the area where the young churches were being established. If that is true, it would mean that the eating of blood in itself was not considered intrinsically sinful, but that if Jews would see heathen Christians doing this, they would reject the Gospel on the basis that it opposed the law of Moses, and the command that God had given to Noah. Animal blood has lost its significance as a means of atonement for sin since the blood of Jesus was poured out. We could even say that emphasis upon the prohibition to eat animal blood would diminish the value of the blood of Christ; which would be a very serious matter. We can hardly maintain at present that eating or not eating of animal blood would in any way
183 Erfurcht vor dem Leben
184 Lev. 17:10,11
185 Heb. 10:4,19
186 Acts 15:20,21,28,29
add to or subtract of our salvation. In a certain way the eating of blood would fit into the same category as the requirement for circumcision that brought such uproar in the early church.
Vs. 4,5 and 6 go together. We read: “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal.
And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” The common factor is the blood, which is the seat of the soul in the Bible. Speaking about Jesus’ death on the cross, Isaiah says: “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”187 The NIV says : “Because he poured out his life unto death.”
I take “I will demand an accounting from every animal” to mean that God holds man responsible for the killing of the animal, not that the animal would be called to give account for the killing of man, as some commentators think. Man is allowed to eat meat, but God will not allow any senseless killing. Here the spilling of animal blood comes in. The animal that is to be eaten has to be killed in such a way that the blood is poured out. This command was later incorporated into the Mosaic law. “ ‘Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth.’ ”188 Vs. 11 explains the reason for this: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
The link between the killing of an animal and the killing of a man is not only in the fact that both are killed, but that the animal substitutes for man. Man is allowed to live because the animal dies for him. He was created in the image of God, when God blew His Spirit into Adam’s nostrils. The killing of animals is allowed for various reasons, but the killing of a man never, except as the execution of the death penalty for murder.
So there are two references to the first chapters of Genesis in this chapter. Vs. 3 refers to ch. 2:16 and vs. 6 to ch. 1:26. The chapter starts out with a blessing and it ends with a curse. God blesses Noah and his children and Noah curses his grandson. The content of the blessing is fertility. We read in vs. 1 and 7
“Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
“As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
In the verses 11-17 we read about God’s promise never to destroy life on earth again by a flood.
This promise is confirmed with the appearance of a rainbow. Whether the rainbow was a new phenomenon after the flood or whether it had appeared before, we do not know. If I understand correctly what caused the flood: the disappearance of heavy layers of humidity; it seems probable that the sun never interacted in such a way with the water vapors in the sky that the sunlight would break up into its basic colors.
The rainbow is in the Bible connected with the glory of God. We find it mentioned in Ezekiel, where the prophet sees the glory of God: “Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking,”189 and in Revelations where John catches a glance of the glory of God in heaven. “The one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne.”190 The rainbow portrays the holiness of God. John says about the character of God, “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”191 The rainbow is light, broken up by a prism into color. We would not be able to imagine a world without color. We are attracted by color, often without knowing why.
Evidently, the holiness of God appeals to the image of God in us. Once we are redeemed, God’s holiness is very attractive to us. Noah and his family must have experienced some of the thrill of God’s presence after the terrible ordeal they went through. God’s glory comes to them as an assurance that there will be no more judgment for them. They passed from death into life.
In vs. 16 God calls the rainbow a sign of “the everlasting covenant.” We read: “Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all
187 Isa. 53:12 (KJV)
188 Lev.17:13
189 Ezek.1:28
190 Rev. 4:3
191 I John 1:5
living creatures of every kind on the earth.” The expression “everlasting covenant” is used several times in the Bible in connection with things that are obviously not everlasting. God affirms an everlasting covenant with Abraham and Jacob and with David. Evidently, the earthly conditions are to be taken as a shadow of a heavenly reality. Just as much as the rainbow which we see with our mortal eyes is an image of God’s holiness, not the essence itself, so God’s promises have a deeper significance than for just the transitory conditions on earth.
In this context we have to understand the word “remember.” The omniscient God cannot forget, consequently, He does not have to remember. The expression is of course anthropomorphic, but also it is meant to show that there is a link between events on earth and things in heaven.
We should try to imagine what it must have been like to go through the flood and come out alive as the only survivors and then be confronted with the breathtaking beauty of a rainbow as an expression of the presence of a Holy God. No wonder Noah built an altar and put sacrifice upon sacrifice on it. The Bible does not say too little when it gives the testimony about Noah, that Noah walked with God. He knew God intimately, and was partaker of His glory. And yet, as the writer to the Hebrews says: “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”192
Let us repeat one more time: The rainbow was the sign of the covenant between God and man. It was an expression of God’s holiness. The covenant was not only meant to show God’s deep sorrow over what happened, but also to alleviate man’s fear. What guarantee do we have that this planet is safe enough to live on? For people who have no choice but to live on it anyhow, this can be a condition that brings about ulcers. God’s holiness, that is God’s character guarantees us our safety. This guarantee does not only cover us against natural disasters, such as floods and earthquakes, but also in our struggle for life. Jesus said: “So do not worry, saying, ‘what shall we eat?’ Or ‘What shall we drink?’ Or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”193
And in Hebrews we read: “Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.’ So we say with confidence, ‘The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?’ ”194
Paul goes even further when he says: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”195 All this is only valid, of course, for people who have entered into a covenant relationship with God. Those who do not believe in God’s holiness do better to fear.
About the “everlasting covenant” The Pulpit Commentary says the following: “Literally, the covenant of eternity. One of those pregnant Scripture sayings that have in them an almost inexhaustible fullness of meaning, which does not in the first sight disclose itself to the eye of the unreflecting reader. In so far as the Noahic 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 Noahic 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.”
The verses 18,19, which close the account of the flood, seem to run ahead to the next chapter, where the genealogy of Noah’s sons is given. The point seems to be that the ark was the birthplace of whole world population. But the fact that Shem is mentioned first, puts the accent upon the Jewish race and the mentioning of the name of Canaan seems to prepare us for the following story, as well as for the events that are later told in the book of Exodus and even as far ahead as the conquest of the land in Joshua. With this running ahead of his subject, Moses want to emphasize that which is important, so that we are prepared to understand this when we get that far in his book.
So these two verses contain the germ of the chapters that follow. Ch. 10 will give us more details about the nation that came from these three men. Ch. 11 is foreshadows in the phrase “from them came the
192 Heb. 11:39,40
193 Matt. 6:31-33
194 Heb. 13:5,6
195 Phil. 4:6,7
people who were scattered over the earth.” And the name of Canaan introduces us to the person who is going to be cursed in the next story, and so it seems to give more validity to the conquest of the country, later on in the Pentateuch.
The last part of the story of the life of Noah is not very complimentary. The NIV says: “Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.” The RSV puts it differently: “Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard.” But there does not seem to be any compelling reason for this translation. If the grape had survived the flood, it is logical to suppose that people had cultivated it before and had made wine with the juice thereof. It is also hard to believe that people would not have become drunk before the flood either.
The story of Noah’s drunkenness and the subsequent curse and blessing pronounced is wrought with problems. It is very easy to presume, as Adam Clarke does, that Noah was innocent, because otherwise
The story of Noah’s drunkenness and the subsequent curse and blessing pronounced is wrought with problems. It is very easy to presume, as Adam Clarke does, that Noah was innocent, because otherwise