Ch. Genesis 9:1-17 (P). The Conclusion of the Flood Story according to P

The passage falls into two sections: (a) 1–7, (b) 8–17.

(a) 1–7. The blessing pronounced upon Noah and his family: man’s prerogatives are enlarged; but two prohibitions are imposed: (i) of eating blood, (ii) of manslaughter.

(b) 8–17. God establishes a covenant with Noah and his descendants, according to which He will never again destroy the inhabitants of the world, and in token of which He appoints the rainbow to be the perpetual symbol of Divine mercy.

Section (b) stands in immediate relation to the Flood story, and corresponds to J’s account of the Divine promise never again to curse the ground (Genesis 8:21).

1. And God blessed, &c.] The substance of this verse is a repetition of Genesis 1:28. Another chapter in history is begun. As in chap. 1, after the Creation, a single pair confronted the whole earth and its animal world, so here, the single family of Noah is to “replenish the earth,” and receives a special blessing, the assurance of Divine favour.

his sons …] The females are not mentioned, but, as often in the O.T., the wives are included in the mention of the husbands: cf. the Sethite Genealogy in chap. 5.

2. the fear of you and the dread of you] This is a new feature in God’s ordering of the world. Hitherto (Genesis 1:28) man had received the command (1) to replenish the earth, (2) to subdue it, (3) to have dominion over the animals. Now, however, a new stage is reached. Man hereafter is invested with the right to take the life of animals for food. The animals, therefore, are in a new measure placed at the mercy of man; and “the fear and the dread” of him are associated with man’s fresh prerogatives.

teemeth] R.V. marg. creepeth, as in Genesis 1:29-30 (P).

into your hand … delivered] i.e. placed at the mercy of you who now have absolute power. Cf. Deuteronomy 19:12, “deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.”

3. Every moving thing] P assumes here that all animals are capable of furnishing food for man, and that there is no distinction between “clean” and “unclean” in the pre-Mosaic dispensation.

as the green herb] See note on Genesis 1:30. As, at the Creation, God said of the whole vegetable world, that it should be man’s food (“to you it shall be for meat,” Genesis 1:29), so, now, He declares that the whole animal world shall be food for man. As He gave the vegetable, so now He gives the animal, life to man. But this gift is accompanied with two prohibitions.

4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof] Man’s privilege is attended, first, with a strict ritual prohibition. The words might be more literally rendered thus, “nevertheless flesh with its vital principle (or ‘soul’), which is its blood, ye shall not eat.” The Israelites regarded the blood as in a mysterious way the vehicle of the soul, or vital principle (nephesh), of the flesh (Leviticus 17:11). The blood was always offered in sacrifice to God as the most sacred part of the victim, the symbol of its life. The prohibition to eat flesh, with the blood in it, formed one of the strictest rules of Israelite and Jewish life. As the institution of the Sabbath was associated with the age of the Creation, so the prohibition of blood-eating was associated with the age of Noah. In other words, its primitive character was shewn by its traditional origin, being regarded as antecedent even to the Call of Abraham. The infringement of the regulation betokens savage impiety (1 Samuel 14:32-34), or contamination with idolatrous abominations (Ezekiel 33:25). In Acts 15:29 to abstain from blood and from things strangled was absolutely necessary for the purpose of holding together the Jewish and Gentile members of the new Christian community1[13]. In our own time the Jews observe this regulation with strictness, and the Jewish butcher follows special rules in order that the meat may be entirely freed from blood (“Kosher Meat”).

[13] But καὶ πνικτῶν is possibly here a gloss; and, if so, the gloss is a tribute to the usage. See Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epp. of St Paul.

The passages in the Law bearing upon this important regulation are Leviticus 17:10-14, Deuteronomy 12:16; Deuteronomy 12:23.

5. your blood] The second prohibition is that of manslaughter. The thought of human bloodshed is naturally suggested by the subject of the slaying of animals. Man’s life is sacred. Neither man nor beast is to take it.

the blood of your lives] A difficult expression. Literally, “for,” or “according to, your souls,” i.e. the blood of a person for the life of each person, “blood for blood,” “life for life,” will God require (as Genesis 9:6). That “the blood of your souls” means “the blood of your own selves,” as distinguished from “the blood of the animals,” is another explanation, but not so probable.

But either of these renderings is to be preferred to that of Tuch, “for the protection of your lives.”

will I require] This thought that God Himself “will require it,” in the case of human bloodshed, appears in Psalm 9:12, “he that maketh inquisition for blood remembereth them,” and Psalm 10:13, “wherefore doth the wicked contemn God, and say in his heart, Thou wilt not require it.” See also Genesis 42:22, “behold, his blood is required.”

of every beast] e.g. in Exodus 21:28-29, the ox that gores a person to death is to be stoned.

at the hand of every man’s brother] “Brother” here denotes the brotherhood of humanity, not of a particular family. He who slays a man slays his own “brother,” although technically there is no relationship.

the life of man] i.e. “the nephesh, or vital principle, of man.” In the first clause God had said He would “require” the blood: here He says He will “require” the life. In Genesis 9:4 “the life” is “the blood.”

6. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, &c.] In the first clause of this verse the principle is laid down, that murder is to be punished with death. Blood for blood and life for life is to be the penalty (cf. Genesis 9:5). The sanctity of human life is thus protected by Divine sanction. The custom of blood-revenge (cf. Genesis 4:10-15), which has entered so largely into the social conditions of Semitic life, whether civilized or barbarous, is here stated in its simplest terms. The murderer’s life is “required.”

The sentence reads like a line of poetry, Shôphêk dăm hâ-âdâm Bâ-âdâm dâmô yis-shâphêk. LXX seems to have misread bâ-âdâm (= “by man”), rendering ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ = “for his blood” (? b’ dâmô): while in the Latin it is omitted altogether.

for in the image of God, &c.] This clause contains the foundation-principle for the tremendous sentence just promulgated. Man is different from the animals. God made him expressly “in His own image” (see note on Genesis 1:27). Violence done to human personality constitutes an outrage against the Divine. Man is to discern in his neighbour “the image of God,” and to honour it as the symbol of Divine origin and human brotherhood. As that “image” is not physical (for God is spirit), nor moral (for man is sinful), it must denote man’s higher nature, expressed by his self-consciousness, freedom of will, reason, affection, &c.

The prohibitions of blood eating and of murder form two of the so-called “commandments of Noah” which were held by the Rabbis of the Jewish synagogue to have been Divinely imposed upon mankind before the days of Abraham; and were, therefore, in theory required from Gentiles living among the Israelites and from Gentiles who attached themselves to the Jewish community.

The “commandments of Noah” are seven—the prohibitions of (1) disobedience, (2) idolatry, (3) blasphemy, (4) adultery, (5) theft, (6) murder, and (7) the eating of blood.

8–17b. The Covenant with Noah

9. I, behold, I] Cf. Genesis 6:17, “I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters.” The same personal emphasis is expressed in proclaiming the mercy of the covenant as previously in the sentence of doom.

establish my covenant] See Genesis 6:18. The Pentateuch mentions three covenants between God and man: (1) with Noah, and its token is the rainbow; (2) with Abraham, 15 and 17, and its token is circumcision, chap. 17; (3) with the people of Israel at Mt Sinai, and its tokens are “the blood of the covenant,” the Tabernacle, and the Levitical system (Exodus 24, 25.).

In a covenant between God and man, God makes the promise and lays down the conditions. Man accepts the terms unconditionally, while God “establishes,” or ratifies, them.

There is no equality of relationship as in a covenant agreement between men. Man is pledged to obedience on the strength of God’s promise of blessing. An outward sign is the “sacrament” of the relation.

10. and with every living creature] The Heb. for “creature” is nephesh, cf. Genesis 1:20. God’s covenant with the creatures, as well as with mankind, suggests the thought of the interdependence between the animal world and the human race. Goodness and kindness towards man involve a corresponding blessing upon the animal world. Love is all-pervasive.

11. a flood to destroy the earth] The promise here given, that there shall never more be a flood, is appealed to by the prophet in Isaiah 54:9-10, “for this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee … for the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.”

12. The Token of the Covenant

The word “token,” Heb. ’ôth is the same as that rendered “sign” in Genesis 4:15, “and the Lord appointed a sign for Cain.” The “token” is the outward and visible sign of the covenant relation. Its outwardness serves to remind man, whose spiritual adherence will become weak without something visible as the pledge of the inner and spiritual bond.

13. I do set my bow in the cloud] Better, as marg., I have set. The Hebrew would literally be rendered “I do give,” or “have given.”

The language is capable of two interpretations:

(1) “I do now, and have just for the first time, set the rainbow in the sky, that mankind may hereafter have a token of the covenant between us.”

(2) “I have appointed my bow, which you and mankind have often seen in the heavens, that henceforth it may be for a token of the covenant between us.”

The former seems preferable. Hebrew legend explains thus the origin of the rainbow. Of course, it must have been visible from the first, being dependent upon the refraction of the light from the particles of water. The words “my bow” imply either that the bow was a familiar object, or that it was God’s gift. The giving of a “token” is not necessarily equivalent to the creation of a feature in nature (cf. Genesis 4:15). Nevertheless, the simplicity of the language favours the most literal interpretation; and the promise in Genesis 9:14-15 suggests that the rainbow was a new phenomenon.

14. that the bow shall be seen] This should be rendered “and the bow is seen.” The promise is not that the bow shall be seen whenever God sends clouds over the earth, but that, whenever He sends clouds and His bow is visible, then He will remember the covenant.

It is possible that this beautiful employment of the rainbow symbol may be the adaptation of a still earlier semi-mythological conception, according to which the God of Israel is represented in poetry as a warrior armed with bow and arrow (the lightnings are His arrows, cf. Psalm 7:12-13; Habakkuk 3:9-11); when His anger had passed, He hung His bow in the clouds. The rainbow does not, however, appear frequently in the imagery of Jewish poetry. In Ezekiel 1:28, and in Revelation 4:3; Revelation 10:1, it is mentioned in connexion with the appearances of Divine glory. As a feature in nature, it is referred to in Sir 43:12; Sir 50:7.

15. and I will] This should be rendered “that I will.” It forms the apodosis to the words in 14, “and it shall come to pass when.”

16. remember] Used of God, cf. Genesis 8:1. Here it suggests that the primitive tradition implied that God might forget, if it were not for “the bow.” The word “remember” may be anthropomorphic; but in the later stage of the tradition, as in this passage, the rainbow is the “sign” or “reminder” for man, not for God.

the everlasting covenant] See Genesis 17:7; Genesis 17:13; Genesis 17:19; Exodus 31:16; Leviticus 24:8; Numbers 18:19; Numbers 25:13, a phrase used by P. Heb. b’rîth ‘ôlâm, LXX διαθήκη αἰώνιος, Lat. foedus sempiternum.

17. This is the token, &c.] This verse, according to the style of P, reiterates the substance of 11–13.

18. the sons of Noah] The names of Noah’s sons have already frequently been given in the P narrative (Genesis 5:32, Genesis 6:10, Genesis 7:13).

Ham is the father of Canaan] This note has in all probability been inserted by the compiler, with reference to the section Genesis 9:20-27 and the curse pronounced upon Canaan (Genesis 9:25; Genesis 9:27).

18–27. Noah, as the Vine-dresser, and his three Sons. (J.)

In this section the narrative, which begins at Genesis 9:20, is introduced by the two connecting Genesis 9:18-19, which either conclude J’s account of the Flood, or are an editorial insertion by the compiler.

(a) 18, 19 Noah and his family leave the ark: (b) 20–24 Noah plants a vineyard, drinks wine, becomes intoxicated, is observed and ridiculed by Ham, but Shem and Japheth shew respect: (c) 25–27 the curse of Noah on Canaan, the blessing on Shem and Japheth.

20. And Noah began to be an husbandman] This expression is an extremely awkward rendering of the strange Hebrew, which is literally “And Noah began man of the soil and planted,” &c. Better, “And Noah the husbandman began and planted a vineyard,” i.e. was the first to do so.

“The husbandman,” lit. “man of the soil,” LXX ἄνθρωπος γεωργὸς γῆς. This description of Noah introduces him in a new capacity. The present section seems to be taken from a distinct tradition concerning the primaeval time, in which Noah appears as the founder of agriculture and of vine cultivation.

21. and he drank] The representation is that of the man who first made wine out of grapes, and drinking of it in ignorance was overcome by its potency. No blame is attached to him.

22. Ham, the father of] Words probably inserted by the compiler (R). If so, in the original narrative there stood in this verse simply the name of “Canaan,” “and Canaan saw the nakedness.” Otherwise the curse pronounced upon Canaan, instead of upon Ham, in Genesis 9:25, is unintelligible (see note).

According to this view, the old tradition, from which these verses are derived, regarded “Canaan,” and not “Ham,” as the brother of Shem and Japheth.

23. a garment] Heb. simlah, LXX ἱμάτιον, Lat. pallium: the large upper garment which was also used as a covering by night, as appears from Exodus 22:26; Deuteronomy 24:13. The conduct of Shem and Japheth, in its regard for their father’s honour, is contrasted with the levity and want of delicacy displayed by their brother.

24. his youngest son] The rendering of the R.V. marg. and of the A.V., younger (so LXX ὁ νεώτερος, Lat. minor), is not permissible. The Hebrew word, where there is a comparison between more than two persons, means “the youngest,” as in the story of David (1 Samuel 16:11; 1 Samuel 17:14). The difficulty, which has led to the rendering of the R.V. marg. and the A.V., arises from the fact that in the order of Noah’s sons given by J in Genesis 9:18, and by P in Genesis 5:32, Genesis 6:10, Genesis 7:13, and Genesis 10:1, Japheth is mentioned third, and was therefore considered to be the youngest. If, however, as seems probable, we are here dealing with a distinct tradition, in which the third and youngest son was Canaan, the difficulty caused by the words, “his youngest son,” taken in conjunction with the curse pronounced upon Canaan (Ham not being mentioned), will disappear.

Origen, in order to escape the difficulty, suggested that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham (Genesis 10:6), saw his grandfather, Noah, lying exposed, and reported it to his father, Ham; and this theory has found favour with many. But, at the best, it is an ingenious gloss; it is not in the text, but an addition to it.

had done] Nothing is told of the youngest son’s misconduct. So far as our text goes, he had merely reported to his brothers their father’s shameful condition. These words, however, suggest that the narrative in Genesis 9:22 has for good reasons been abbreviated or modified.

25. And he said] Noah’s utterance of a curse upon Canaan and of a blessing upon Shem and Japheth is expressed in poetical terms. The solemn words of a father, as the head of his house, concerning his sons, partook of the character of prophecy, and were expressed in brief oracular sentences. Cf. in the story of Jacob chs. 27, 48 and 49.

Cursed be Canaan] Three times over, in these verses, is the curse repeated against Canaan, while a blessing is pronounced upon Shem and Japheth. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Canaan here stands on a level with Shem and Japheth, and that he is regarded as Noah’s third son; as, indeed, is expressly indicated by the mention of “his brethren” (Genesis 9:22; Genesis 9:25). The explanation that the wrong-doing of “Ham” is punished by the curse levelled at Canaan, a son of Ham, seems most improbable; but this is the only explanation which the words of the text in Genesis 9:22, making “Ham, the father of Canaan,” the offender, will admit. The mention of “Ham” in that verse is almost certainly a late insertion for harmonizing purposes.

A servant of servants] i.e. the meanest of servants, the slave of slaves. Lat. servus servorum. For this method of expressing the superlative, cf. “the Holy of holies,” i.e. the innermost Sanctuary (Exodus 26:33); “prince of the princes” (Numbers 3:32); “God of gods, Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalm 136:2-3); “Song of Songs,” i.e. the fairest of songs (Song of Solomon 1:1); “the King of kings,” i.e. the Omnipotent (Ezekiel 26:7).

unto his brethren] Canaan is to be the slave of Shem and Japheth. The oracle predicts the subjugation of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and forecasts their inability to resist the power of Japheth. The precise manner in which the subjection of Canaan to Japheth was historically realized must be left uncertain. There is no suggestion of a whole race doomed to a condition of slavery. The application of this clause to the African races is an error of interpretation. Doubtless the power of the Japhetic races was from time to time successfully asserted against the Phoenicians. Japheth represents the races of the West and North.

If Canaan be not here regarded as the brother of Shem and Japheth, it must be assumed that the punishment of Ham is to be inflicted upon his son, Canaan. This is the usual explanation; but it breaks down in view of the fact that all the names are used symbolically and representatively, and the oracle has reference, in each case, not to the individuals, but to their descendants. Hence there would be no point in singling out a son of the real offender, instead of indicating the offender himself.

SPECIAL NOTE ON Genesis 9:25-27There is much uncertainty as to the period of history to which the Song, or Oracle, of Noah may be considered to refer. In all probability, the question must be left undecided.

1. It has been understood to refer to the times of David. Shem, i.e. the Israelites, have subjugated Canaan. Japheth, i.e. the Philistines, coming from the West, have first inflicted defeat upon the Canaanites, and then occupied the S.W. portion of the country of Palestine. But is it possible that an Israelite poet would have spoken so favourably of the Philistines, and have described their arrival under the simile of Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem?

2. It has been understood to refer to the times either of Solomon or of Ahab. Shem, i.e. the Israelites, have subjugated Canaan, and have entered into terms of friendship with Japheth, i.e. the Phoenician; king of Tyre. It is obviously an objection that, in Genesis 10:15, the Phoenicians are ranked among the sons of Canaan. Moreover, it is hardly probable that the devout Israelite would offer to the worshippers of Baal a welcome into the tents of the servants of Jehovah.

3. It has been conjectured (by Gunkel) that the poem has reference to the great racial movements of the second millennium b.c., and that Canaan may represent the earliest Semitic immigrants into Palestine; Shem, the invading races of Aramaeans and Hebrews; Japheth, the northern nations, and, in particular, the Hittites. It may be doubted, whether the migratory invasion of Aramaean and Hebrew peoples would ever have been comprehended by an Israelite singer under the single symbolic name of Shem; and, also, whether he would have regarded any other peoples besides Israel as belonging to Jehovah. Again, if so wide a designation be assigned to Shem, the prayer that Japheth may “dwell in the tents of Shem” becomes unintelligible.

4. It has been conjectured, by Bertholet, that the Song has reference to a late period; that Shem represents the post-exilic Jews; Canaan, the heathen dwellers in Palestine and Phoenicia; Japheth, the Greeks under Alexander, who conquered and subjugated Phoenicia, and received a welcome from the Jews of Jerusalem. But this, beside other improbabilities, assumes too late a date for the composition of the Song.

5. It is better, for the present, to leave our judgement in suspense. But, in all probability, we should be right in supposing that under “Jehovah, the God of Shem,” is contained a reference to the people of Israel; and that in the denunciation of Canaan, “A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren,” is implied a time when the subjugation of the Canaanites was not yet complete; when they were still formidable; and when the support of Japheth (unknown peoples (?) in the north) was likely to prove a welcome assistance, though only of a temporary nature, to Israel.

The period, then, might conceivably be not long after the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan.

It only remains to point out the importance of this poetical Oracle in the literature of the Old Testament. (1) It treats of the movements of the nations as ordered and guided by Jehovah. It may thus be described as possibly the first product of Israelite prophecy. (2) In its attitude of generous trust towards Japheth, it is an early example of the spirit of tolerance towards the stranger, which in later Judaism was almost lost in narrow exclusiveness1[14].

[14] I am indebted to the discussion of this Song in G. Adam Smith’s Schweich Lectures, 1910, pp. 46–49.

26. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem] The blessing invoked, not upon Shem himself, but upon Jehovah the God of Shem, is intended to convey the thought that herein will lie the true welfare of the descendants of Shem. The point of this oracle is, of course, dependent on the fact that Shem is to be the ancestor of Israel. The blessing here invoked has reference only to the Hebrews whose God is Jehovah. They are the favoured ones: the God of Redemption will manifest Himself in them. After “Cursed be Canaan,” we should expect to read “Blessed of Jehovah be Shem.” But there hardly seems to be sufficient reason for regarding the text as corrupt. Graetz, who is followed by Gunkel, with a slight alteration of the text, viz. by the transposition of two consonants and by a different reading of the vowels (which of course did not appear in early Hebrew writing), reads, “bless, oh! Jehovah, the tents of Shem” (אהלי שם for אלהי שם), so that “the tents of Shem” should end this line as well as line 2 in the next verse.

his servant] The translation of the margin, their, is to be preferred. The word in the Hebrew is a poetical form of the plural pronoun; and here the reference is to Canaan’s brethren.

27. God] The blessing on Japheth is introduced with the name not of “Jehovah,” but of “Elohim.” Jehovah is the God who reveals Himself through the descendants of Shem. The blessing of Japheth shall come from God; but Japheth will not know God by His name Jehovah.

enlarge] The word in the Hebrew, yapht, is employed on account of its resemblance in sound to the name of Japheth. The blessing means, “May God extend the rule of Japheth,” i.e. may the meaning of his name be realized in the extension of his power!

let him dwell] Better than he shall. The “he” in this clause is not God, but Japheth. The clause contains the prayer that Japheth may ever continue on terms of peace with Shem, and that his descendants, dwelling as guests among the Israelites, may partake of their privileges. That “to dwell in the tents of Shem” should mean “to dispossess the Shemites and occupy their homes” (following the analogy of the phrase in Psalm 78:55), is an explanation quite unsuited to a clause of blessing.

The conjecture that “Shem” in this verse is not a proper name, but is the Hebrew word meaning “name” or “renown” (as in Genesis 6:4), so that the meaning is “and let him dwell in the tents of renown,” would hardly have been suggested, unless the clause had been one of some obscurity.

his] Better, as R.V. marg., their. See note on Genesis 9:26.

28 (P). And Noah lived] This and the following verses are the conclusion of P’s account of the Deluge. In contents and character they belong to the genealogy of the Sethite patriarchs in ch. 5.