As we leave the ark, it’s as if Creation as begun again. And like Eden, God’s blessing’s have returned in the form of multiplying and filling the earth. However, things aren’t quite the same. No longer is there a seemingly harmonious relationship between man and beast, who have now become part of the food chain (where previously everyone appeared to be a vegetarian). As such, their relationship now contains fear and dread. (If folk started eating me I suppose it would change my perspective of them.)
Further, God deals with the consequence of taking the life of a human, whether by man or beast. God is the giver of life and it is His exclusive domain. Further, humans are created exclusively in His image and likeness so are in a category all their own; to kill a human is to require the murderer’s life in return. I’ll note two things here. One, this is a stricter punishment than what existed before, we’ll note that Cain escapes with his life after the murder of Abel. Also, this seems to also apply to humans that aren’t walking with God (as the distinction is their creation in His image and likeness, not their current faithfulness.)
The gut reaction here may be to jump to applicability of this section to things like the death penalty or war. This isn’t the right text to debate the veracity of a”just war” theory, however I’ll note that what God says here is, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed…” God isn’t exacting direct justice upon the murderer, it sounds like man is responsible for regulating the justice on God’s behalf. If and how Jesus impacts this is a reasonable discussion, but at stake is correct understanding the principles of the value of human life (in one hand) and God’s justice when that life is taken unnecessarily (on the other hand).
Note that God’s covenant for the rainbow is not just with Noah, it’s with the creatures as well. Consider the next time you meet a rabbit that it’s not outside the realm of possibility that God is doing business with that rabbit in some way or another. The sign is a rainbow, which doesn’t imply that there was never a rainbow before that point, it’s just something that happens when it rains that God is using as a reminder to humanity (and the rabbit, I suppose) that He’s not going to flood the place again in judgment.
Here’s as good a place to note as any, there’s a bit of a Moses vibe going on with Noah. We think of those two folks being a long way apart, and they are, if you’re digesting the first 5+ books of the Bible as a group, and recognize they were likely written around the same time, the parallels add some depth to the story. For similarities, note that both “found favor in God’s sight”, both are saved by an ark (Moses’ tiny boat thing he sent down the Nile in is described with the same word as Noah’s boat, a rare word in general), both are prophets, have a priestly role (sacrifice) and both lead building projects with really specific guidelines given by God (ark and tabernacle). Both also are given laws in the context of the covenants God is establishing either with them or, in Moses’ case, the people he is leading.
On the back half of chapter 9, the prime point seems to be to tag Ham with the curse of Canaan. This is an interesting curse in that it comes from a human, not from God. Still, it will come true eventually when the God’s people are freed from Egypt (where they were slaves, I might add) and take the “promised land” from the Canaanites in the process. It’s worth noting here that the curse is exclusive to the Canaanites (not all of Ham’s descendants), which makes any foolishness related to the subjugation of the offspring of Ham as a whole (who settled in Africa/Arabia) even more untenable.
The story that brings the curse on is kind of an odd one. Noah is man of the land (this is good) but then he grows grapes and passes out drunk in his tent (the text isn’t clear that Noah has sinned here). Ham’s sin is also not clear besides potentially the fact that he ignored his father’s shame and neglected to do anything about it. (If we think that’s a reasonable extrapolation, and I think it is, it should certainly inform how we look at the world and those who need help. The fact that you didn’t strip a man nude and laugh at him doesn’t mean you’re not on the hook for leaving him that way once it came to your attention.)
In either case, the two other brothers take extensive measures to protect their father’s honor and cover him. Note here also the similarities to Eden in Noah’s story as well. We get the combo of blessing, nakedness and cursing. Just like in Eden, the nakedness is covered by a 3rd party (God for Adam and Eve, his sons do the job for Noah) Again, ours is not a work of convenience but of labored necessity to protect the honor of those created in the image and likeness of God, even if they got in their shamed position by passing out drunk in the nude. Consider that next time you spend your time in judgment of someone’s shameful circumstances instead of finding ways to reduce that shame. We’ve got a lot of work to do, boys.
For follow up: there’s pretty strong and reasonable evidence to believe that Ham’s sin here is related to having sex with his mom, which here is referred to as Noah’s nakedness, see Leviticus 18. This also makes the curse of Canaan make much more sense, because Canaan is the product of Ham’s relationship with his mother, and possibly an attempt to usurp Noah’s lineage and to having the family line be elevated through Canaan.
[The Naked Bible Podcast] Naked Bible 159: Noah’s Nakedness, the Sin of Ham, and the Curse of Canaan #theNakedBiblePodcast
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/131004895 via @PodcastAddict