Chapter Nine
God blesses Noah
Genesis 9:1. And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them Just as the founder of the first world—Adam, immediately upon being created, received a special blessing from God (Gen 1:28-30), so the founder of the second world—Noah receives a similar blessing. Both this and that blessing are equally concerned with three points: the multiplication of man, his authority (dominion) over animals, and his food. The power of this divine blessing applied not only to the righteous Noah, but also to his “sons,” that is, both his immediate and future posterity, in short—to all mankind, now renewed and called to new life. Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth; But it was not added, as once to Adam: “and rule over it,” because man through transgression had lost this god-like power or, at all events, greatly diminished and curtailed this god-like capacity. And only the second Adam—our Lord Jesus Christ, having destroyed the power of sin, again subjected all things under His feet and left nothing not subject to Him (1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22; Heb 2:8).
Genesis 9:2. The fear and dread of you shall rest upon every beast of the earth, [and upon all the cattle of the earth,] and upon all the birds of the heaven, everything that moves on the earth, and all the fish of the sea: into your hands they are delivered; “This was not in the blessing given to Adam: he was lord of creation, but not terrible. When the inner dignity of man no longer makes creatures subject to him, God restrains them through fear” (Philaret).
Genesis 9:3. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as the green herb I give you all; This is already the second food law in number (Gen 2:16), which now permits, along with the former types of it—vegetation and field grains—one new kind, namely meat of animals, birds, and fish, in short everything that moves and lives. The reason for the new permission is explained by the blessed Theodoret as follows: “God, foreseeing man’s inclination toward idolatry and the deification of animals, gave the flesh of the latter as food, so that he might understand how inappropriate it is to give divine honor to earthly creatures, which can be killed and eaten.”
The prohibition against eating blood and murder
Genesis 9:4. Only flesh with its life, with its blood, you shall not eat; In giving a new food law, God introduces into it a significant limitation—He prohibits the consumption of animal blood. The reason for this prohibition is indicated here itself, namely in the fact that the blood of an animal is as it were identified with its life. A similar idea is encountered in many other places in Sacred Scripture (Lev 17:11; Deut 12:16; Prov 28:17). It is curious that besides Sacred Scripture, this idea is found in the writings of many ancient authors, and particularly in the classics (Virgil, Empedocles, Pythagoras, and others). Thus, the common popular psychology of antiquity placed the fundamental principle of animal life, that is, what is called the soul, hidden in its blood. Standing on the point of view of this naive psychology and wishing to instill in man, on its basis, as much respect as possible for all other (including animal) life, God gives the prohibition against consuming blood. This is the first Noahide commandment; subsequently, under Moses, it received more detailed exposition and more extensive physical, moral, ceremonial, and typological argumentation (Lev 17:11; cf. Heb 10:4; John 1:17).
Genesis 9:5. I will surely require your blood, the blood of your life, I will require it from every beast, These words give a beautiful confirmation of the view we have just presented regarding blood as the seat of the soul. Even toward animal blood the Lord instills proper respect through strict punishment; and in order to emphasize more sharply the idea of the criminality of murders, God says that He will require human blood not only from the conscious murderer but even from an unreasoning animal and wild beast, which subsequently even received a definite legislative sanction (Exod 21:28). and I will require the life of man from the hand of man, from the hand of a brother of his; If murder by an unreasoning animal was subject to harsh punishment, then assuredly, much more criminal and therefore much more severely pursued was the murder of man by man.... In the words of the given text itself, some not without reason see the condemnation of two kinds of murder—suicide (the life of man from the hand of man, that is, of himself) and the murder of others.
Genesis 9:6. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed: The law prohibiting murder receives its exception, but such an exception which strengthens the force of this law all the more, restraining its violation through fear of corresponding (similar) retribution. This permission beautifully expresses the spirit and essence of all Old Testament morality, which demanded an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life (Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; 2 Sam 1:16). Here lies the foundation of the ancient custom of blood revenge, a cultural survival of which, to a certain extent, are our modern duels. But Christianity, having brought new humane principles to the world, has long condemned this practice: it commands us not to execute the involuntary, and even the voluntary murderer, but rather to correct him in every way possible and bring him back to truly human life. for in the image of God was man made; Here lies the inner, the deepest foundation of why murder of man is especially criminal. The creation of man in the image of God, placing him as it were in a relationship of some spiritual kinship with God Himself, makes his person sacred and inviolable, so that absolutely no one, not excepting even man himself, has the right to encroach upon his life, the sole dispenser of which is only God Himself, who gave it. In these words it is important to note, first, that here the distinction between image and likeness is confirmed, and second, that the presence of the image of God is not denied in our man.
The conclusion of God’s covenant with Noah
Genesis 9:8. And God said to Noah and to his sons with him: In the section we are considering, we are told of the renewal of the covenant which the Lord blessed to conclude with Noah even before the flood (Gen 6:18). But now this covenant is proclaimed even more solemnly and in a wider scope: before it was only a personal union of God with the righteous Noah (“with you”), now his entire family enters into it (“with you”) and all their future posterity and even the animal world.
Genesis 9:9. Behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your offspring after you, This was a covenant of salvation from destruction and death, and in this sense it can serve as a type of the evangelical promise, proclaiming the good news of deliverance from eternal, sinful death (Ezek 34:25; Jer 32:40).
Genesis 9:10–11. and with every living creature that is with you, with the birds, with the cattle, and with every beast of the earth that is with you, with all that came out of the ark, all the animals of the earth; I establish My covenant with you, that no flesh shall be cut off by the waters of the flood, and there shall be no more a flood to destroy the earth. Here is further proof of how close is the connection of man with all nature: man falls, and all nature falls; man perishes, and all living things perish, finally, man rises and with him all creation rises (Rom 8:20).
The gift of the rainbow as a sign
Genesis 9:12–13. And God said: “Here is the sign of the covenant which I place between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, so that it will be a sign [of an eternal] covenant between Me and the earth.” As an external, visible sign confirming the non-repetition of a world-wide flood, God indicated to man the rainbow, a known atmospheric phenomenon consisting in the refraction and decomposition of the solar light ray in a transparent medium (body) of water. As for how to understand the significance of this sign itself, the opinions of exegetes diverge here: some think that the rainbow appears for the first time from this moment and had not existed at all before because there had been no rain at all, and the earth was irrigated only by mist and dew, as can be supposed on the basis of Gen. 2:6 (Gen 2:6). Others more reasonably suppose that the rainbow existed before; but previously it was a completely indifferent heavenly phenomenon—now it is assigned special symbolic significance. And the fact that the rainbow was chosen for this purpose, rather than something else, has its full justification: this is because a rainbow, that is, the visible refraction of sunlight, is possible only on the condition that the clouds do not cover the sky entirely, but leave an opening both for the sun and rain does not present itself as a solid mass of water which might threaten a flood. Natural scientists even now observe that rainbows do not appear during tropical downpours. Hence, the appearance of a rainbow is a natural proof that the rain does not have a threatening character and does not resemble the inundation before the flood (Gen 7:11). To this natural phenomenon, God deigned to assign special symbolic significance, choosing it as the sign of His covenant with Noah. Analogous examples are provided, for instance, by the crawling of the serpent on its belly, which became a symbol of humiliation, or immersion in water in the sacrament of baptism, which became a symbol of cleansing from original sin. In Sacred Scripture we encounter other expressions of the symbolic significance of the rainbow: it serves as one of the attributes of the divine judgment upon the world together with lightning (Ps 17:14), or appears as a sign of divine greatness and glory (Ezek 1:27-28; Sir 43:12-13; Rev 4:3). The idea of a special mysterious significance of the rainbow apparently found echo in the universal myths of pagan antiquity, where the rainbow was most often depicted as a gentle messenger from heaven, bringing joy, peace, and the goodwill of the gods to earth.
Genesis 9:14. And it shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow [shall be] in the cloud; The verb “to bring” in the sacred biblical language is used mainly to express the concept of an impending danger or a storm (Gen 6:17 and many others). Thus, at the moment of the greatest expectation of danger, the Lord promises to send the rainbow as a symbol of pardon and deliverance from heavenly punishment.
Genesis 9:15–16. and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the water shall not again become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the rainbow shall be in the cloud; and I will see it, and will remember the everlasting covenant between God [and the earth] and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” This is nothing more than an anthropomorphic depiction of the idea of divine providence toward men, which, by analogy with man, is presented as remembering them each time some hidden danger threatens them. This general providential attitude of God toward men does not exclude special divine actions, proceeding from the fact of the covenant concluded between God and Noah.
Genesis 9:17. And God said to Noah: “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth. These are the concluding words to the entire rather extensive discourse about the covenant and its significance.
Noah plants a vineyard
Genesis 9:18. And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. From here begins a new biblical section—the history of the children and further descendants of Noah (toldoth Noach). As for the meaning of the names of his immediate children, according to the most accepted interpretation, the word “Shem” means “sign, mark,” and hence—in general “name”; the word “Ham” probably means “burning, black, dark, swarthy,” and the word “Japheth” means “spread out, expand.” The enumeration of Noah’s sons is made here with the purpose of showing that mankind had no other founders besides them. And Ham was the father of Canaan. According to the explanation of John Chrysostom, “Scripture wishes to indicate to us the extreme lack of restraint of Ham, that such a great calamity (the flood) and such close living in the ark could not curb him, but while his elder brother did not yet have children, he, during such a time of God’s anger, when the entire universe was perishing, gave himself over to lack of restraint and could not restrain his unbridled desire” (Homily 28). This does not exclude another explanation, according to which Canaan is indicated here as the representative of that Ham-descended tribe which received the name Canaanites and, living subsequently in proximity to the Hebrews, came into contact most of all with the history of the God-chosen people (Gen 12:6).
Genesis 9:19. These three were the sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. Further, in chapter 10 (Gen 11:1), we will see a more detailed exposition of this thought. Here we can only note that the descendants of Shem (Semites) populated Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Arabia; the descendants of Ham emigrated chiefly to Africa, and finally, the descendants of Japheth spread throughout the northern part of Asia, in India, penetrated into Europe, and probably even into America (Acts 17:26).
He becomes drunk and is mocked by his son
These verses reveal the occasion which gave rise to Noah’s subsequent important prophecy.
Noah began to cultivate the earth, and planted a vineyard;
Armenia, where, according to the testimony of the Bible, Noah’s ark settled, is considered the birthplace of the grape vine.
and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and was uncovered in his tent.
Moderate consumption of grape and grape juice represents itself an excellent and healthful therapeutic agent, so that, considered from this point of view, Noah’s cultivation of grapes is a useful and good deed. But pre-flood mankind was not at all acquainted with it and with the consumption of wine; for the first time Noah had to become acquainted with all of this, and it could easily happen that he, not knowing the power and effects of wine, drank more of it than he should, and fell into the state indicated here. The very expression “began” (Septuagint, Slavonic) already shows that he made a beginning of the consumption of wine and was subject to intoxication through complete ignorance and lack of knowledge of the measure of wine consumption. Even the mistakes of righteous men serve as the best warning to us against our self-confidence (1 Cor 10:12) and the most effective medicine in those cases when we are overcome by despair and despondency in view of our sinfulness (Jer 8:4). “For this reason,” said John Chrysostom, “not only the virtues of the sons, but also their transgressions are described, so that we may avoid the latter and imitate the former” (Homily 29).
Genesis 9:22. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, Ham saw that very nakedness which painfully was felt by our ancestors immediately after eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:7) and which, from a sense of shame, they covered with girdles. However, on the part of Noah in all this there was very little guilt: first, as is clear from the context, he did this in his sleep and consequently, unconsciously; second, he permitted it in his home (in his tent), where no strange person should penetrate with an immodest look, and where every man has the right to allow himself greater freedom and ease of action. and he went out and told to his two brothers. This last addition reveals the whole guilt of Ham: if Ham had only been an unwilling witness to such a somewhat scandalous picture and had not attached any particular significance to what he saw, then he would not have committed any transgression. But Sacred Scripture speaks of the opposite: “in this haste to tell what he had seen to his brothers, we see a deeply corrupted nature; in his action we see malicious joy in the humiliation of his father, a feeling of pride and sense of superiority and a lack of a feeling of shame” (Vlastov). Uncovering the motives expressed quite clearly here of Ham’s action, we can say that he mocked his father before his brothers, depicting him in an unfavorable light—how this six-hundred-year-old elder, such an unwavering pillar of piety and faith—could fall into such a ridiculous state! “When he told of what had happened, perhaps he even mocked the shame of his father, not heeding the wise one who says: do not seek glory in the dishonor of your father” (John Chrysostom, Homily 29), (Sir 3:10; Exod 21:17; Lev 19:3; Matt 15:4; Prov 30:17). He was, as it were, glad that he who had served as an example of strict life and had curbed his wickedness was now in an improper state from intoxication.
Genesis 9:23. 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 did not see their father’s nakedness. By this action they not only did not express sympathy for Ham’s deed, but destroyed the very cause of it. And to the extent that Ham displayed a vicious inclination and corrupted imagination, lack of filial respect, Shem and Japheth, on the other hand, gave us an instructive example of chastity, modesty, and lofty filial love and respect for their father, even at such an exceptional moment, when he seemed least to deserve it. their faces were turned backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. A small, but very characteristic detail, proving how deeply the moral sensibility of these two worthy sons of Noah reached.
Genesis 9:24. And Noah awoke from his wine From this it is clear that all the preceding occurred while Noah was asleep, that is, outside the participation of his conscious will. and learned what his younger son had done to him. “How did he learn this?” asked John Chrysostom, and answered thus: perhaps the brothers told him, not in order to accuse the brother, but to explain the matter as it had happened, so that Ham might receive medicine corresponding to his illness (Homily 24). No less wisely does John Chrysostom resolve another difficulty—how to understand the designation of Ham as the “younger” or “least” son, when it is certainly known that he was the middle son (Gen 9:18): “Ham, of course, was not the very youngest; he was second and older than Japheth, but if he was older than the latter in age, he proved younger in spirit, and daring placed him below the younger brother.” In the Hebrew text the word “younger” expresses a comparative form, not a superlative, and consequently does not indicate Ham as the youngest of all Noah’s sons, but only as comparatively younger precisely in relation to Shem.
Noah curses Canaan
These three verses contain an inspired prophecy of Noah, who, proceeding from facts revealing the inclinations and behavior of his children, foretells the future fate of each of them, together with their descendants.
Genesis 9:25. Cursed be Canaan; The question of why the full weight of this curse falls not on Ham, the chief culprit, but on his son Canaan, has several more or less plausible conjectures. Thus, Origen, following Jewish tradition, explains it by saying that the boy Canaan was supposedly the first to notice the indecent position of his sleeping grandfather and pointed it out to his father Ham: but this explanation, besides everything else, does not withstand criticism for the simple reason that one can never consider a young, unreasoning boy more responsible for the same transgression than a mature man. Much deeper and more sound is another explanation proposed by Chrysostom: “It is not without reason and not in vain that Scripture mentioned the son (of Ham), but for some hidden reason. Noah wished both to punish Ham for his transgression and the insult done to him, and at the same time not to violate the blessing already given by God: “He blessed,” it is said, “Noah and his sons,” when they went out of the ark (Gen 9:1); furthermore, Chrysostom explains in detail that Noah, in laying a curse on Canaan, who more than all others embodied the typical characteristics of his father and was therefore especially close and dear to him, struck the most sensitive punishment to Ham himself. Finally, the aforementioned consideration about the exceptionally important role of tribes in the future history of Israel is not without significance, in the spirit of prophetic foresight which Noah utters a curse on the descendants of Canaan only, not touching the other children of Ham. a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers. This is the usual form in Hebrew language of intensifying a thought (superlative degree), which can be described most appropriately thus: in complete subordination and in the most perfect slavery the descendants of Canaan will be to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. And history, indeed, gave complete justification to this prophecy. Thus, the descendants of Canaan were put to death and enslaved by the Hebrews under Joshua, during his conquest of the Promised Land (Josh 9:23). More than once, and especially under David and Solomon, the Canaanites experienced the heavy hand of the descendants of Shem and served them (1 Sam 9:20-21). And the other branches of the Hamites—the Phoenicians, and especially the Ethiopians, were subdued by the tribes of Japheth—the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
He blesses Shem
Genesis 9:26. And he said: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. The prophecy given to Shem constitutes a complete opposite to the preceding one: that one began with a curse, this one begins with a blessing; that one foretold slavery, this one proclaims dominion. The very formula—“Blessed be the Lord God,” when applied to God, means the raising of praise and thanksgiving to God (Eph 1:3); but the most remarkable thing about it is that here the God of revelation—the Most High—for the first time is called the proper God of Shem. This means that the descendants of Shem will stand in special, exclusively close relationships to the Creator, as the founders of the God-chosen Hebrew people, and that from it will come patriarchs and prophets—servants of God on earth, and finally, from it will come Christ the Savior Himself. And let Canaan be his servant.” This refers most immediately to those subordinate vassal relationships in which the Canaanites stood to the Hebrews in the era of Joshua and in the times of the Hebrew kings.
Noah’s prayer for Japheth
Genesis 9:27. May God enlarge Japheth, In the Hebrew text here a peculiar wordplay is given (japhet éjephet), or a parallel of concepts, since the name “Japheth” itself means “broad spreading, expansion.” To the posterity of Japheth, thus, was foretold the broadest settlement on the face of the earth; and indeed, in the persons of the Caucasian peoples, it has settled the greater part of Asia, almost all of Europe and America, not to mention that it also comprises the privileged part of the population in the remaining countries of the New and Old World. To the quantitative spread of the Japhethites corresponds his intellectual superiority: the metaphysics of India, the philosophy of Greece, the strategy of Rome, and all modern world civilization owe their existence and prosperity, chiefly, to the genius of the Japhethites. and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; The reference is not to God, as some mistakenly supposed (Philo, Theodoret, Onkelos, and others), but to Japheth, to whom in time was foretold a dominant position even over the descendants of Shem. And, indeed, this prophecy has been justified in a twofold sense: both in the political sense, when the Romans, descendants of Japheth, conquered the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem itself, and in the religious sense, when along with Israel, nations (people) entered the Church of Christ (Eph 2:11-15). “Through these blessings, pronounced on Shem and Japheth, he (Noah) seems to me to have foretold the calling of two peoples, namely: through Shem—the Jews, since the patriarch Abraham and the Jewish people descended from him, and through Japheth—the calling of the Gentiles” (John Chrysostom, Homily 30). And let Canaan be his servant.” The justification of this prophecy can chiefly be seen in the growth of slavery of the black races by the white, and in the all-around dominance of the latter over the former. In concluding the detailed commentary on Noah’s prophecy, we must say that this is one of the most remarkable accounts, embracing in a general schematic outline the main currents of all subsequent human history, embodied in the fate of the three sons of Noah, as the founders of all subsequent mankind: here is the beloved firstborn of Noah—Shem, to whom is foretold special divine favor, here is the ungrateful Ham, to whom is proclaimed rejection and slavery, here is the youngest son—Japheth, on whose fate was to be fulfilled the evangelical prophecy that “the last shall be first,” first both in the cultural-historical sense and in the Christian-religious sense.
Genesis 9:28. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. According to calculations of some scholars, the three hundred fiftieth year of the post-flood era falls on the fifty-eighth year of Abraham’s life; consequently, Noah was a witness to the building of the tower of Babel and the subsequent dispersion of nations.
The death of Noah
Genesis 9:29. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died. Both of these chronological dates remind us of the well-known similar examples from the genealogy of the Sethites (Gen 5:31 and others). Noah was the last of the patriarchs to reach such an advanced old age, and this was not without special divine providence: the agent of the last six centuries of the pre-flood world, Noah was also a witness to the first three and a half centuries of the history of the new, post-flood humanity, and by his person, as it were, bound together both these worlds and served as a bearer and keeper of all universal traditions of mankind. The six hundred years of Noah’s pre-flood life allowed him to see Methuselah and hear from his own lips accounts of primordial times, received by Methuselah directly from Adam himself, and the three hundred fifty years of the post-flood period opened the possibility of personal discourse with Abraham and the transmission of all sacred traditions to him, from which through two or three intermediate steps (Jacob, Levi, Kohath), all of this by purely natural means could reach the chronicler Moses, who, besides this, was also illumined by a special supernatural divine revelation. “So closely was oral tradition, inscribed on the pages of the Bible, transmitted, and at the time when Moses was inscribing it, the entire Hebrew people could believe in the truth of these accounts with the traditions of the elders” (Vlastov).