As Noah and his family stepped out of the ark, they must have had great hopes for their new life in a fresh world. Surely, the flood had fixed all that was broken in the world that they had known… hadn’t it?

As the floodwaters receded, humanity made a tragic discovery. They stepped into a cleansed world, but not with a cleansed heart. The same diagnosis of the human condition that once justified judgment now becomes the reason for God’s continued mercy. That tension should drive us deeper. If the problem wasn’t the environment, but the human heart, then what would it actually take to truly make things right?

In this episode, we turn to Genesis 9 to explore a new beginning that wasn’t as new as it seemed. You will see how Noah functions as a kind of second Adam, why God both blesses and restrains humanity at the same time, and how His covenant with Noah establishes stability but without yet solving the problem of sin. We’ll also wrestle with the moral weight of administering justice, the meaning of the rainbow as a sign of peace, and a deeply uncomfortable story that exposes how quickly righteousness can unravel.

Listen carefully—this episode does not simply explain the world after the ancient flood. It illuminates the world we still live in and points forward to the only solution God ultimately provides.

Music transition 1

Although the primary subject of this episode is Genesis 9, we actually find the theme for today in Genesis 8. I will begin reading at verse 20:

Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
 “As long as the earth endures,
 seedtime and harvest, 
 cold and heat,
 summer and winter, 
 day and night
 will never cease.”
 Genesis 8:20-22

When Noah and his family stepped out of the ark, they came into a fresh new world, but they each brought with them their old human heart. As God said, “every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood,” we could say, “every inclination of the human heart is still evil.” We might be surprised at this. God’s flood judgment had not changed the human heart. Humanity still needed God’s mercy. Before the flood, we read    in Genesis 6,

The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created
 Genesis 6:5-7

God cited the evil inclination of the human heart as the reason for his judgment. Now he cites that same human condition as the reason for his mercy. If we are honest, this isn’t just their story long ago, it is still our story, today. We may change our circumstances, our habits, even our surroundings, but the deeper struggle within us remains. External change alone is never enough.

God blesses Noah and his family

How does God respond to the needs of humanity in this newly clean world? He blesses Noah and his family and also adds regulation to keep evil under control. Listen to Genesis 9:1-7.

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 on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 
 
 “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 human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 
 
 “Whoever sheds human blood,
 by humans shall their blood be shed; 
 for in the image of God 
 has God made mankind. 
 
 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
 Genesis 9:1-7

This paragraph begins and ends with a restatement of God’s blessing to Adam from the creation story: “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The author of Genesis deliberately treats Noah as a new Adam, receiving God’s blessing and directive to multiply on the earth. God’s blessing provides a frame around the regulations which we also find in this paragraph. Noah provides a new beginning for humanity, but the structure hints at the deep problem of human sin which has not yet been solved.

God continues to echo his early commission to Adam to subdue and rule the animal kingdom, but he does so with military terminology, “fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth.” God now places fear of mankind into the animals so that people may have a measure of control over them. This enmity between humans and the animal world is the result of Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden. 

God adds, “they are given into your hands.” Mankind has the power of life and death over animals. God expects us to domesticate animals and use them for our advantage, but because of human inclination to evil, God adds some regulations. First, he explicitly gives animals as food to mankind. “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Sometimes you hear someone say that those who really follow God well should be vegetarians, since that was God’s plan from creation. This is a reasonable interpretation of God’s words in Genesis 1, but now we live after the flood, when God explicitly gives Noah and his descendants the right to eat meat. If you choose to be vegetarian for personal health reasons, that is a perfectly valid choice, but it is not more godly.

God further says, “Everything that lives and moves about will be food.” This precludes eating animals who have died of natural causes. He also says not to eat meat that has the lifeblood still in it. In other words, the blood must be well-drained before eating. God’s regulations in this paragraph regarding food seem consciously designed to lay the foundation for later Mosaic laws.

Faithful Christians today disagree on whether this particular prohibition of consuming blood is still applicable. Because the early church included this prohibition in their directive to gentile Christians in the first century (Acts 15), some believe that it is still valid today. Others believe that the directives of that first church council were pastoral and represented good practice within the culture of that day but are not necessarily universal within all cultures for all time. Christians of good conscience can differ.

Please notice this carefully:  God does not wait for humanity to improve before He blesses them. He blesses them and places boundaries around them. That has real implications for us.   God’s commands are not restrictions that make our life worse; they are protections given in the light of our weakness.

God also demands an accounting for human lifeblood. The author emphasizes this point by using the expression “demand an accounting” three times. First, God demands retribution on animals who take human life. When the Mosaic law fleshed out this command in Exodus 21, it prescribed executing a bull which gored a man to death. If the bull had a habit of goring humans, then its owner was to be executed as well, since he should have kept his bull penned up.

To demand an accounting requires calculation, a life for a life. Homicide is the greatest contempt for life. When God says in verse 5 that “I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being,” it literally says, “I will demand an accounting for his brother’s life.” This is the first time that the word “brother” has been used since Genesis 4, and it is surely an allusion to the story of Cain’s murder of Abel. This asserts God’s position on the sanctity of human life.

To emphasize the strict correspondence between murder and punishment, the author uses a tight chiastic structure repeating each key word in reverse order. Gordon Wenham emphasizes this with his translation of verse 6:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
 by a man shall his blood be shed.”[1]

Shedding human blood implies premeditated murder, not an accident, and the reason for holding murderers responsible lies in the image of God in each human.

What does this say to us about the civil exercise of capital punishment? Clearly, God institutes a life for life accounting and gives the responsibility to demand that penalty to society, but this responsibility drives us to humility.  Justice matters deeply to God—but so does truth. Wherever human judgment is involved, we should proceed with caution, knowing that our ability to determine guilt and innocence is limited.

God establishes a Covenant with mankind

In addition to God’s blessing on Noah and his family, He also established a covenant with Noah’s family and all humanity. We see this in Genesis 9:8-11.

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
 Genesis 9:8-11

Covenants were common in the ancient near east, often functioning like a peace treaty between would-be enemies, establishing peace and ratifying the promises they made with each other. The closest analogous feature in our culture is the covenant of marriage. God’s covenant with Noah is the first explicit mention of this important theological idea in the Bible, although some interpreters see the blessings and regulations God gives to Adam as something of a covenant. The covenant with Noah did not solve the persistent human sin problem, but it did bring stability to creation.   The sun always rises; spring always follows winter; God always watches His children faithfully. Even in a broken world, we have opportunity to find peace with God.

God continued to build on this stable foundation with His covenant with Abraham. There, He promised to bring blessing to all nations through Abraham’s descendants. Later, God’s covenant administered through Moses defined the holiness that God expected of his people and exposed mankind’s sin problem by establishing the law. Again, God made a covenant with his chosen king, David, to establish his family as an eternal dynasty. Because of the waywardness of David’s heirs, God allowed his people to go into exile. In confusion and pain the Psalmist cried out in Psalm 89, “You have renounced the covenant with your servant and have defiled his crown in the dust.” But God still had a plan. He would still raise up a descendant of David who would become the final solution to the prevailing wickedness of mankind.

The prophet Jeremiah anticipates this when he says,

“The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
 “when I will make a new covenant
 with the people of Israel…
 I will put my law in their minds
 and write it on their hearts.
 I will be their God,
 and they will be my people.
 Jeremiah 31:31-33  

Jesus acknowledged his fulfillment of this promise when he lifted a cup after his final Passover supper, saying  “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you (Luke 22:20)  

As the writer of the book of Hebrews confirms,

Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance —now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the [covenant of the law].
 Hebrews 9:15 

Ancient covenants often featured a sign to help the partners of the covenant remember their promises to one another. God established such a symbol with these words, 

“This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
 
 

Although modern English readers are accustomed to referring to the sign of the covenant with Noah as a rainbow, biblical Hebrew had only one word for both “rainbow” and “bow” as a weapon. God sets aside his bow and hangs it in the sky.  This sign of war has now become a sign of peace. While humans can see the bow, the symbol’s primary purpose is to remind God of his promise to show mankind peace and mercy.

The rainbow is a phenomenon of nature, but because it conforms to natural laws appointed by God it is an appropriate pledge that God will continue to maintain those natural laws. Nothing here implies that the rainbow was a new phenomenon; rather, God, gives it enlarged meaning as a symbol of His enduring favor towards us. When we see a rainbow, we tend to think about its beauty.  But in Scripture, it’s more than that—it’s a reminder that God has chosen mercy over judgment; not because sin disappeared, but because God chose grace.

Humanity’s continued heart problem

God’s blessing, regulations, and covenant established peace between God and mankind, but the very next story in Genesis reminds us of the same old human heart problem that demands a final solution.

Let me read that story beginning with verse 20.

Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked. 
 
 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said,
 “Cursed be Canaan! 
 The lowest of slaves
 will he be to his brothers. ” 
 
 He also said,
 “Praise be to the LORD, the God of Shem! 
 May Canaan be the slave of Shem. 
 
 May God extend Japheth’s territory; 
 may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, 
 and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
 Genesis 9:20-27

This story is clearly compressed, since vineyards take years to produce wine. The reference to Noah as a man of the soil is unusual and may allude to the prophecy of his father. When Noah was born, his father Lamech prophesied concerning him, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed” Gen. 5:29). To plant a vineyard might represent a step forward in agriculture, since it could mean that Noah was the first cultivator of grapes. On the other hand, the Mesopotamian flood tradition records the cultivation of grapes for wine before the flood. In fact, the flood hero in that story supplied the builders of his ark with wine. 

It is not likely that the author of Genesis is censuring Noah for drinking wine. In fact, wine was necessary with every burnt offering (Num. 55:5-10) and was encouraged for celebrating the annual Jewish festivals. At the same time, drunkenness was considered dangerous and incompatible with holiness. For Noah to drink to the point of drunkenness and self-exposure represented a significant fall for one who was called “blameless among his contemporaries.”

The thrust of the story, however, is not ultimately Noah’s failure but Ham’s response to it. The Old Testament considered honoring one’s parents as a sacred duty. This story provides a picture of the character of Noah’s three sons, one who dishonored his father and two who honored him. We also have a part to play in this story. When we encounter the failure of others, especially those we should respect, what do we do?  Do we expose and amplify it?  Or do we respond with restraint, allowing them dignity, and giving them honor?

Issues raised by this uncomfortable story

This story raises several issues which we will deal with in turn. First, what exactly was the offense of Ham?

What was the offense of Ham?

The most natural way to read the text is the most straightforward. Ham saw his father naked in his tent. Nakedness was an important issue to the author of Genesis. He already let us know that by several references to nakedness in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden. Presumably Ham came upon his father in this dishonorable state quite by accident. He should have quietly covered him up, but instead, he multiplied his father’s shame by gossiping about it to his brothers. 

In contrast to Ham, Shem and Japheth honored their father by covering him. The author goes into great detail describing how they accomplished this covering without seeing their father’s shame. They walked into the tent backwards with a cloak over their shoulders. Apparently, they waited until they could see their father’s toes appear out from under the garment and then allowed it to drop over his unclothed body. By going into such detail, the author allows the story to slow down so that the listener can feel the horror of Ham’s shameful actions and appreciate the worthiness of Shem and Japheth’s meticulous efforts.

While this is the most natural way to understand the text, some, particularly westerners who are unfamiliar with cultures where honor is a supreme virtue, feel like there must be something more going on than appears on the surface. Perhaps there is a more specifically sexual offense. In Leviticus 18 (KJV) we read,” None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.” Uncovering someone’s nakedness is unquestionably a euphemism for sexual intercourse. But did “seeing someone’s nakedness” mean the same thing?

A variety of sexual offenses have been suggested including Ham engaging in homosexual relations with his father, Ham emasculating his father, or attempting to usurp his father’s patriarchal rights by having intercourse with his wife. Perhaps Ham’s son Canaan was the offspring of his incest. All these suggestions seem to be disproved by the actions of Ham’s brother’s, however. If covering was the remedy, then the offense was seeing. Covering would have provided no remedy for inappropriate sexual relations and certainly not for castration.

Genesis does not tell us how Noah discovered what had been done to him because it was irrelevant. The focus was on the actions of Noah’s children. Noah refers to Ham as his youngest son. The Bible generally lists children in birth order, and Ham is always listed second. Perhaps the translation should be “younger son,” rather than “youngest.” On the other hand, in lists of words, like “Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” putting the short words first simply sounds better, in both Hebrew and English.

Why did Noah curse Canaan, not Ham?

A second question confronted in this story is “Why did Noah curse Canaan, Ham’s son, since it was Ham who was the offender?” This has troubled commentators for centuries. There is no obvious answer, but here are some suggestions made through the years:  

·        First, some suggest that there is a textual problem. Originally the text may have said simply, “Canaan saw his father naked.” Later the words, “Ham, the father of” were added so that it now read “Ham the father of Canaan saw his father naked.” Let’s try to find an explanation that does not involve imagined textual additions without evidence.

·        Secondly, some point out that God had just blessed Noah and his sons and had established a covenant with them (Gen. 9:1, 9). Noah could not very well just unsay the blessing God had already given. He cursed Ham’s son instead.

·        A third possibility is that this is mirrored punishment. Noah’s youngest son, Ham, had sinned against him. In response, Noah cursed Ham’s youngest son, Canaan, thus punishing Ham indirectly.

·        A fourth explanation is that the actions of Noah’s sons provide a preview of the character of their descendants. Ham’s sin was in the character of the later Canaanite people, who were notorious for abominable sexual behavior.

·        Finally, the blessings and curses in these verses were addressed to the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, not the family heads themselves. In his curse on Canaan, Noah is making that future reference explicit.

Perhaps the answer to why Noah cursed Canaan, his grandson, instead of Ham, the son who dishonored him, lies in a combination of these options

Were the words of Noah fulfilled?

Another question raised by this story is whether Noah’s blessings and curses should be considered prophecy. If so, were they fulfilled?

The ancient near eastern culture considered patriarchal blessings to be powerfully effective. On the other hand, there is nothing here to suggest that these words carried the authority of God. What were the specific futures that Noah envisioned for his descendants.

First, Canaan would be the lowest of slaves to his brothers. The reference to “brothers” means Shem and Japheth, as the following pronouncements make clear, even though literally they were his uncles. This curse was reiterated as “May Canaan be the slave of Shem” and even later “May Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” This triple prediction makes it extremely emphatic. One possible literal fulfillment of Canaan as the slave of Shem would be the subjugation of the Canaanites by Israel under Joshua (Joshua 9:26). Much later, the city of Sidon, who were descendants of Canaan, were conquered by the Greek descendants of Japheth, under Alexander the Great.

Second, Noah said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!” This is an unusual blessing, making the LORD the object of the blessing rather than Shem. This is the first suggestion in the Bible of Shem as God’s elect line, which was fulfilled emphatically with God’s call of Abraham.

Noah also pronounced, “May God extend the territory of Japheth.” This is a play on words. Japheth’s name means “extend” or “enlarge.” A literal translation, then, would be “May God extend Extend’s territory.” The territory of the descendants of Japheth reportedly extended across Russia and ultimately into Europe.

The final blessing states, “May Japheth live in the tents of Shem.” Literally, the text says May he dwell in the tents of Shem, opening the possibility that it is God who would dwell with Shem. This is an old interpretation based on statements such as Exodus 29:45, “Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God.” But how could God’s dwelling among Shem be understood as a blessing to Japheth? It is better to understand that Japheth will share in the spiritual blessings of Shem. This began to be fulfilled with the call of Abraham, through whom, God promised, “all peoples on earth will be blessed (Gen. 12:3). Ultimately, it is fulfilled in the coming of Jesus Christ to establish his international church from the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

A Serious Misuse of This text

Before we leave this passage, we need to address a serious misuse of this text. Since at least the 15th century, this passage has been cited by religious leaders as justification for the enslavement of African people.

This point of view is based on three assumptions

1.     First, the children of Shem became the Jews.

2.     Second the descendants of Japheth became white people.

3.     Third, the descendants of Ham became “the degraded black race.” In this understanding, the word “Ham” is related to the Hebrew word for black.

These assumptions are based on partial truths and unsupported conclusions. First, that the children of Shem became Jews is only partially true, since the children of Israel were only one branch of Semites. Secondly, Ham’s sons included Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. Egypt and Put are, in fact, references to African peoples, but not all Ham’s sons were cursed, only Canaan. The Canaanites were incredibly wicked, proving that Noah’s curse was warranted. They were enslaved by a coalition of eastern kings in Genesis 14, by the Israelites during their conquest under Joshua, and later under the reign of Solomon. Thirdly, recent scholarship shows that the name “Ham” is not related to the Hebrew word for black. Finally, while some white people are descended from Japheth, that is irrelevant to this argument, since Noah pronounced his curse specifically on Canaan, who was not the patriarch of any African people group. This so-called Curse of Ham, which is actually a curse on Canaan, is not only a misreading of Scripture, but a tragic example of using the Bible to justify something it never teaches. It deserves to be left behind.

A final question presented by this story is…

Why did the writer of Genesis include this story?

There are several places in Genesis where it seems that the author is preparing the way for the wilderness experience of Israel. He may have included this story as an illustration of the fifth commandment to “Honor your father and your mother.” He may also have included it to provide a basis for God’s later command to the Israelites to totally destroy the people of Canaan. We also have seen a repeated structure in the book of Genesis. The last story of each section of the book previews the next section. We certainly see that here, as we prepare for the history of Shem Ham and Japheth beginning in Genesis 10.

After this final story, the author includes this genealogical reference:

After the flood Noah lived 350 years. Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.
 Genesis 9:28-29

This finishes the genealogy of Noah, which he began in chapter 5 verse 32. The entire story of the wickedness of Noah’s generation and God’s resulting judgment has been inserted like a giant parenthesis. This conclusion follows the standard formula as the genealogy in Chapter 5, except that the phrase “he fathered other sons and daughters” is omitted to clarify that all mankind is descended from Noah’s three sons which he has repeatedly named.[2]

Final Comments

This episode confronts us with a sobering truth: even after God’s judgment, the human heart remains unchanged. And yet, God does respond, not with renewed destruction, but with measured mercy. He blesses humanity, establishing boundaries to restrain evil, and makes a covenant to preserve the world. This provides stability in the midst of ongoing sin. But the final scene, today, reminds us how quickly righteousness can crumble in failure. Humanity’s deepest heart problem has not yet been solved. Genesis 9 leaves us living in tension between God’s mercy and human brokenness. And it quietly raises a question: what would it take not just to preserve life, but to transform the human heart?

In our next episode, considering Genesis 10 and 11, the author of Genesis will describe the multiplication of nations and languages, fulfilling God’s blessing on Noah and his family. He shows this through both genealogy and story, rushing forward toward the introduction of Abraham.  This is the salvation story that Genesis really wants to tell, how God prepares for our deliverance from evil and the ultimate prospect of a clean heart.

If this episode has been helpful, one of the best ways you can support this podcast is by sharing it with your friends. Is there someone who would benefit from thinking through these ideas? Send them a link and tell them why it mattered to you. That would be so valuable. Thank you for your help in growing this Bible Wisdom Today family.

[1] Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis 1-15. Zondervan.
[2] https://theconversation.com/the-curse-of-ham-how-people-of-faith-used-a-story-in-genesis-to-justify-slavery-225212