Take Two: Genesis 9, Proverbs 31

As we dig into chapter 9 we see it is intimately connected with Chapter 8. In fact, the blessings of God toward Noah (Sethite descendent) and all of the creatures saved from the flood are restated here, along with the sign of the covenant. Further, we also see how the covenant promise of God will be carried on through Noah's descendents, particularly through Shem, and how Shem's descendents will relate to those of his brothers.

Gen 9:1 gives us the restated blessing toward Noah and his sons. It is intended to remind us of the blessing of Gen 1:28. Not only was the blessing of God to be realized through procreation, but it is also seen in the dominion that man was to have over all of creation.

Gen 9:3-4 contains an EXPLICIT change in dietary restrictions. In Gen 1, man was given (explicitly) all of the plants and fruit for food. It can be inferred that man also ate meat at that time but it is not explicit. In Gen 9:3-4, man is given explicit instruction that all of the beasts were also for food, only that the meat must be cooked (i.e., without its blood in it). Man was not to kill animals indiscriminately (but for food) and was never to kill another man. Here we see a distinction between the killing of animals and the killing of people.

In Gen 9:5-6 we find a statement that God will avenge a man's death through other men (blood-avenger), or as we find it today, through the action of civil government. The "shedding of blood" statement refers (in context) to murder. We will find later provisions in the Mosaic Law for accidental deaths, etc. Here, it speaks of murder as with Cain and Abel. The reason for the distinction between the provision for man rather than beast is because man is created in the Image of God (Gen 9:6). [Another reason to reject the modern "PC" thought that man is just a highly evolved animal.]

In Gen 9:8-17, we find the covenant between God and creation, to never again destroy "all" living things by flood (Gen 9:11). This is a one-sided covenant, meaning that it is not conditional on any act of man. God issues it as a divine decree.

Gen 9:18-19 serve as a bridge to carry us from the flood narrative to the descendent of Noah who will be prominent in the next chapter, the "Table of Nations."

Gen 9:20-24 contains the "sin of Noah" and the subsequent sin of Ham. Noah's sin was that of becoming drunk and then displaying his immodesty. People have tried to explain this in many ways, but the Bible itself only indicates that Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent in such a way, that his family could see him. Remember that after the original sin, the first family experienced shame in their nakedness and immediately constructed coverings from leaves (Gen 3:7). After pronouncing judgment on their sin, God made for them suitable coverings to cover their shame and nakedness (Gen 3:21). Nakedness and shame go hand-in-hand in the Scripture.

[This is probably a good place to reflect on our culture's view of nakedness, pornography, and nudist colonies. From the very first sin, nakedness was synonamous with shame in the Scriptures. A culture that embraces nakedness as some form of ideal, flaunts their own shame in the eyes of God. I am not making a case from "neck to ankle" bathing suits...just observing that to feel no shame in nakedness of this sort, appears to be completely and universally contrary to God's Word.]

Ham's sin (Gen 9:22) (which some have erroneously proposed to be some homosexual act) was to look on his father's shame and to promote it to others. Ham did not regard the sin/shame of His father in the same way God did. As a result, Noah cursed him. Shem and Japeth DID regard Noah's sin/shame as God does and protected themselves while covering their father's shame (Gen 9:23). For this, they were blessed.

The blessing/curse concept takes on special significance in the coming chapters and is evident throughout biblical (as well as modern) history.

The chapter ends with "and Noah died," which is reminiscent of chapter 5's genealogy of Adam.

Some have said that there must be more to Ham's sin than just making fun of it to his brothers. This view exists because we have a difficult time seeing sin as God does. We think it is just a little sin that Ham committed and SURELY God would not curse him for it forever. Our view of God in this case is in error. The wages of {but one} sin (no matter how great or small in our eyes) is eternal separation from God (Rom 6:23). This does not change because we do not understand "how," or think it to be unfair. God's view of sin is "zero tolerance." Perhaps we would do well to examine our own lives to see if we also have a "zero tolerance" policy for sin in our own lives. (Not the sins of others, but our own.)

Proverbs 31:8 is the takeaway today. We, as God's ambassadors are called to speak up for those who cannot speak from themselves. We are called to defend those who are otherwise defenseless. As we think about this, two modern-day concerns come to mind. First is the rights of the unborn. If God's people will not speak for them...who will? Second is for those who are oppressed in the world. If we as God's people will not speak to the suffering and tyranny in Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq...who will? We should never seek to colonize a country for national interest, but...we also cannot sit by while the rights of those who cannot defend themselves are destroyed when we have the ability to help. It is not only our privilege to aid them...it is our divine responsibility as Children of the King.

Grace,