Lonang Commentary on Genesis 9

Gen. 9:1,7 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. … And you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”

Family and Dominion Affirmed

Noah has just offered sacrifices to the Lord, after which God resolved in the counsel of His will, as it were, not to destroy all living creatures again as He did with the flood, all in anticipation of making a covenant with Noah. Since the scripture plainly says God said this in his heart, then presumably no words were spoken out loud and Noah did not hear them at this time. So beginning here in chapter 9, God speaks aloud to Noah, spelling out the exact terms of the covenant. This scenario mirrors the giving of the Dominion Mandate (or the Adamic covenant) in chapter 1. First God resolved what He would do in the counsel of His will in Gen. 1:26, then separately He spoke the exact terms of the covenant aloud to Adam in Gen. 1:28-30.

The first words out of God’s mouth both times, were “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Now, it’s not as though the Dominion Mandate had expired or terminated. Neither the Fall nor the flood did anything to either halt or modify the Dominion Mandate, so it was still in full force and effect, even if the Lord had said nothing about it to Noah. But psychologically, Noah had to wonder whether the game was still on, because mankind had been quite successful in being fruitful and multiplying, yet God destroyed them all except for his little family. He probably wondered whether God had changed His mind about the matter. He might have needed some assurance about what to do next.

So God provided Noah with a confirmation that His will in this matter had not changed. It was neither a new instruction, nor a revival of one that had died, but merely a confirmation to go and do it all over again. Putting Noah and his wife in the position of Adam and Eve, with Noah being the direct male ancestor of all people born after the flood. Of course, Noah’s job in this regard was already done. He already had his children, he would have no other children the rest of his life, and the business of being fruitful and multiplying would fall entirely on Shem, Ham and Japheth. For God’s intention for mankind from the very beginning had been that people should increase, thrive and survive. He was not about to let the human race die out completely.

It is fairly to be implied that the rest of the Dominion Mandate – to subdue the earth and rule over every living thing – also remained in full force and effect. For neither the Dominion Mandate, nor any other of God’s covenants with men, can be fragmented or split into severable pieces. All of the divine covenants are what I call package deals – they all hang together such that so long as any one portion of them remains effective, every last part of them remain effective. Thus, the human reproduction clause cannot be separated from the dominion clause – so long as either one remains, both of them remain. And obviously, the human reproduction command is still in full force and effect. Therefore dominion must be, as well – including the plants clause.

Thus, with the Abrahamic covenant, the Promised Land clause and the sign of circumcision clause hang together – they cannot be separated, or separately modified, etc. The Abrahamic covenant is one single unitary covenant that cannot be broken into severable pieces. The same is true of the Mosaic covenant – it is a package deal, whose parts hang together as a single unitary covenant. The moral laws, the judicial laws, and the ceremonial laws are, in God’s mind, one unitary covenant. It is not man’s job to try to sever the pieces and hold some portions as still in effect, while abandoning other portions to the ash heap of history. And in this light, we must regard both the Adamic and Noahic covenants. Keep that in mind when we consider capital punishment shortly.

Gen. 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.

Enmity Between People and Animals

Earlier I commented on how the animals went willingly into the ark because at that time there was no enmity, or fear and dread, between people and animals. All of that changed here in verse 2, when God told Noah that the fear and dread of mankind would now be part of the innate nature of all the land animals, birds, creeping things and the fish of the sea. This is likely tied together with God’s next command – to eat meat, which would necessarily involve an ongoing and systematic slaughtering of animals. It was possible that before the flood, people may have killed animals for clothing or other domestic (household) purposes, and if the example of Abel is any indication, animals may have been routinely sacrificed to God for worship purposes. But with the introduction of meat into the human diet, the killing of animals would have expanded exponentially.

Perhaps, and I’m just guessing here, if God had not put fear and dread into the animals, then they would have yielded themselves up too easily to be slaughtered. Given man’s sinful nature, this may have led to a premature extinction of animal species as people went on a hunting spree with no resistance. So, in a sense, by changing the nature of the animal kingdom, God was preserving both the animals and mankind from an extreme and unbridled carnage. As it is, even with the fear and dread firmly in place, people have shown a tendency to kill animals excessively, threatening both their existence and the human food supply.

Additionally, the enmity between people and animals may be tied together with the command to execute murderers. Before the flood, certainly, people were well acquainted with the killing of other people, since murder and violence was a major motivation for God to destroy mankind. But these three commands taken together – enmity with animals, eating meat, and executing murderers – establish a sort of framework in which to understand when killing is, and is not, justified. Killing animals is justified, but they won’t make it easy to be captured. Killing people is sometimes unjustified (murder), and sometimes justified (enforcing the law of murder). In all cases, man needs to make a right discernment.

Scriptures also indicate that in the future Millennium, when the kingdom of Christ will cover the earth and Israel is restored in its land and its people, the enmity between man and animals will in some sense be reversed, as indicated by these familiar texts:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. Isa. 11:6-9.

And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. Hos. 2:18.

Strictly speaking, these scriptures only directly apply to a restored Millennial Israel. However, I postulate that because the fear and dread of man is currently part of the innate nature of animals, to achieve the results indicated in Isa. 11 and Hos. 2, it would require a change in the animals’ innate nature. Suggesting that such a change would be worldwide, not merely in Israel, because the entire earth will at that time be full of the knowledge of the Lord. And if that is true, it may be possible that all mankind will stop eating meat. However, the scriptures do not say these things in so many words, and we much be cautious when inferring possible implications. I do not say any of these things with certainty – we will just have to wait and see.

Gen. 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Command to Eat Meat

Unlike the command to continue to be fruitful and multiply in verse 1, which was an affirmation of the prior Dominion Mandate, the command to eat meat in verse 3 was something entirely new. Regardless of whether people may have been killing animals for non-food purposes before the flood, there is no reason to suspect meat was part of the human diet back then.

This is yet another instance of the universal Law of Enumerated Powers, in which no authority is given unless it is expressly granted. Which is to say, anything not expressly delegated is necessarily withheld. And from the beginning, God had given man only certain plants for food (seed-bearing plants and tree fruit). Gen. 1:29. Thus, no one had the authority to eat meat until God expressly said they could after the flood. God wasn’t simply ratifying or acknowledging what people were already doing.

Sure, men were disobedient towards God before the flood, and were capable of sinning in this regard as well. But animals had no fear and dread of mankind before the flood, which they could very well have developed if they were being routinely hunted and killed for food. Plus, it seems evident from the conduct of the animals in coming to and settling in the ark, that none of them were killing each other for food either. Which makes it less likely that anyone was killing animals for food. Perhaps God simply made meat distasteful to people, so no one had any desire to eat meat. It is impossible for us to say if this was true, of course, but it seems evident that eating meat was a new thing for people after the flood.

When God said that meat shall be food for you, I take this to mean that it was a command, not a mere suggestion, nor was God merely adding another potential menu item to man’s diet. It was a statement in the sense of thou shalt eat meat. However, we cannot and must not infer any requirements as to portions, amounts, or frequencies in the eating of meat, nor any direction as to the choice or selection of the types of meats, whether red meat, fish, poultry, etc. Just like the command to be fruitful and multiply, God does not prescribe any minimums, maximums, quotas, or the like.

This is a matter between each person and family before God, to determine the time, place and manner of compliance with God’s command. It is not for one family or group of families to tell other families what their compliance must look like. Nor is it, most especially, not within the authority of either church or state to direct the manner of observance of this command by families and individuals.

I will observe, however, that both vegetarianism (a refusal to eat meat for “moral” reasons – what morality?), and veganism (a refusal to treat animals as commodities, including eating meat), both stand squarely in opposition to God’s command, and are therefore sinful on their face. Both deny that eating meat is a duty owed to God, and veganism also fundamentally denies man’s dominion over the animal kingdom. However, that makes neither of these a crime punishable by civil authorities, nor something that can be regulated. Violation of the command to eat meat is a moral offense only – much like someone’s violation of the Sabbath – that lies solely between that person and God, and to God alone must they give an account.

Notice that none of the restrictions imposed on the Jews by reason of the Kosher food laws in Lev. 11 are stated or implied here in the Noahic covenant. There is no basis for importing any of such laws into verse 3, for the Kosher food laws were not imposed on, and do not apply to, Gentiles of any nation. Further, at the time when Noah and his family left the ark, Abraham had not yet been called, his posterity had not yet been marked out, and the nation of Israel did not yet exist. God does not impose any ex post facto or retroactive laws, so when the commands of Lev. 11 were given, they did not reach back in time and alter the Noahic covenant. Nor were they given to Gentiles in the first instance.

Which means that yes, there are a significant number of foods available to be eaten lawfully by Gentiles, that are not lawful for Jews to eat. There is, in fact, nothing Jewish about the Noahic covenant. Rather, it is a universal covenant applicable to all people today.

Gen. 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

The Life Is In the Blood

No sooner did God command people to eat meat, than He imposed a limitation. Namely, not to eat meat with its blood, because life is in the blood, and life is precious and sacred. This is a theme that will carry into the next command re: capital punishment.

Again, similar to the Kosher food laws, the laws delivered to Israel expanded on this general prohibition and imposed some additional obligations. See, Lev. 17:10-16. Thus, the Jews are required to pour blood out and bury it in certain instances. Violation of the command not to eat blood would result in a person being cut off from (ostracized) among the Jews. And in that specific context, God said, “I have given it [blood] for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” Lev. 17:11.

However – again – the Levitical requirements did not retroactively modify the Noahic covenant, nor did they ever apply to any Gentiles. Hence, we must avoid the temptation to read into Gen. 9:4 things that are not there – specifically, that not eating blood has anything to do with atonement. Blood will play a role in atonement for capital punishment purposes, but that is expressly limited to the human blood of wrongdoers. Here, in verse 4, we are concerned only with animal blood, and only in the context of food, not the commission of crimes. Don’t blithely assume that just because blood factors in two different contexts, their interpretation is the same, or linked together.

As with eating meat, the context of verse 4 is another duty owed by individuals to God, which duty is moral only, and not subject to regulation or punishment by any external authority. Many have interpreted this command such that in preparing meat as food, it must always be cooked well-done. That is certainly one way to thread that needle, but I would say the prohibition at a minimum means that meat must always be cooked, and not eaten raw. Exactly how well to cook meat, or whether eating raw fish is a violation of this command, is not for me to say. Each person must determine the extent of their duty towards God in their own conscience.

However, I will venture to say that drinking blood, whether animal or human blood, as a beverage is a pretty clear violation of this command. It is no wonder then, that drinking blood is often associated with satanism, the occult, and fellowship with demons, for it takes what is precious and sacred and uses it in a defiling way to essentially spit in the face of God. But if you think about it, many of the most flagrant sins people commit are the oldest, having roots in the early chapters of Genesis.

Just think of the innumerable ways people violate the Dominion Mandate (and I can’t possibly list them all here): denying that God made people male and female and no other; people who try to change their sex as though God made a mistake; denying the necessity and desirability of marriage; subverting marriage with no-fault divorce; women denying male headship; the adoption and bearing of children by unmarried individuals; denying and subverting parental rights over children; denying man’s right to property; denying human dominion over animals; giving animals legal rights and priority over people; mandating or prohibiting activities on the Sabbath – oh, the list goes on and on.

The same is true of the Noahic covenant: vegetarianism and veganism; drinking blood, imposing capital punishment on mere theft and economic offenses; refusing to execute murderers; passing laws or institutional rules about behaviors which are merely moral and between each person and God; regulating or restricting childbirth; imposing coerced sterilizations; assuming we have the power of God to save the planet; insisting that people are inherently good; denying that our actions corrupt and defile the earth – and the list goes on.

However, in the long run, God’s laws will always have their way – they cannot be beaten, avoided, or nullified. Mankind may disobey in the short run – OK, it’s a 6,000 year short run – but God enforces His own laws and He never forgets, His laws never change, and God never will lose to us mere disposable creatures of His. “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.” Gal. 6:7.

Gen. 9:5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man.

As To Killer Beasts

Verse 5 builds on the principle that the life is in the blood – all blood – and therefore it is precious and sacred. Therefore, the shedding of blood, either by an animal or by man, requires a reckoning, that is, a penalty. Meaning that if a person is killed by an animal, that animal must die – not as a sacrifice, but as a penalty. So that capital punishment applies to animals that kill people, as well as to people who kill people. This is confirmed in the Mosaic law:

“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.” Exo. 21:28-29.

Note what the Mosaic law requires: if a man keeps an animal that has a history of violence towards people, it is his responsibility and he bears the guilt if the animal kills someone. This is not nearly as foreign a concept as you might think, for in the English and American historic common law, there was the well-known principle that “every dog gets one bite.” Thus, if a dog with no prior history of violence bites a person, it could be excused as an aberration, or perhaps the animal was provoked or threatened. But if a dog that has bitten before bites again, then it would be immediately put down – in other words, executed per the law of capital punishment.

Now you might think it strange that God would address animals separately in this way. However, the animals went through the flood experience as well as Noah, which Peter expressly referred to as a form of baptism. 1 Pet. 3:20-21. The animals had just been given a new aggressive and hostile nature towards people. And the terms of the Noahic covenant were expressly made applicable to all the animals to the same extent as people. Gen. 9:15-17. So really, it would have been strange if God had not included some specific commands for the animals.

Gen. 9:5-6 From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

Capital Punishment

Here in verse 6 we have the institution of capital punishment, which is the first instance of the grant of any authority to punish crimes, that is, the first grant of any law enforcement authority. You might think that surely people must have had law enforcement of some kind before the flood. But no, the example of Cain and Abel clearly showed that God had not yet (at that time) given anyone the right to punish murder, and if no one could punish such a heinous crime, it is most doubtful anyone would have attempted to punish lesser offenses. Plus, God expressly said, and put a mark on Cain to make His point evident to other people, that anyone who tried to avenge Abel would suffer sevenfold.

Given the small population of the world at the time, it’s not hard to conceive that word of God’s prohibition would have spread to everyone very quickly, and then passed to future generations as time went by. It is likely that people also understood, though not expressly stated by God, yet fairly to be implied, that anyone who tried to avenge any future murder victims would similarly incur God’s wrath. In other words, God’s reservation of law enforcement authority over Cain would have been clearly understood as the withholding of all law enforcement authority over future crimes. Which probably explains why the earth was filled with violence in Noah’s time – everyone knew there would be no punishment. I daresay that before the flood, there were not only no blood avengers, but no police, and no jails.

Consequently, capital punishment is not part of the laws of nature. It proceeds directly from the Noahic covenant, and being entirely covenant based, not creation based, it only applies to whomever the covenant applies to, making it a part of the laws of nature’s God, being revealed only in the Bible.  Yet in this case, it happens to apply to every single person, nation and government in the world, because we are all descendants of Noah.  And it has never expired, because as long as the rainbow is in the sky and God’s promise not to flood the world again holds, all the terms of the covenant (including the death penalty) still apply to all people, without exception. With the caveat, as we have noted many times before, that the command of God is limited to its terms and not to be understood as being more expansive than it really is.

Which brings us to a modern Christian fallacy taught by many today, that Gen. 9:6 is the beginning of human government, and it is the basic foundation upon which human government was to be established. Oh Lord, deliver us from this gross error! First and foremost, when the command to implement capital punishment was given, there were only eight persons alive in the whole world, and there were no civil governments then in existence. Indeed, before there could be any civil governments there first had to be nations, and nations did not come about for at least another century, following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel. The development of civil governments would have been slow and gradual from that point, such that they were only in an infant state by the time of Abraham, roughly 2000 B.C. (perhaps 250 years after Babel).

In point of fact, all of the commands included in the Noahic covenant were given to Noah and his family in their private capacities. Notice, that the commands to be fruitful and multiply, to eat meat, and to execute murderers were all given to the exact same people at the exact same time. We cannot come along centuries after the fact and say, “well this command goes to this group of people, and that command goes to this other group of people.” It absolutely never would have been understood that way by Noah, and we cannot go back and impose an unnatural understanding of the covenant now. In fact, I doubt anyone understood the command of capital punishment to be a “government” thing until the modern age.

Who was it, exactly, who had the power of capital punishment in the old days? Why, the blood avenger, of course. In other words, most usually, the nearest male relative of the murder victim. Not a police officer, not a government official, and not someone hired by the local head of government to punish criminals. For the most part, the blood avenger was a family member, who acted on behalf of the victim’s family, to safeguard the family from possible further attacks. Which is exactly what we should expect, given that the Noahic covenant itself was directed to families (be fruitful and multiply, remember?).

So when the nation of Israel comes along some 900 years or so after the flood, what do we see? There are eleven references to the avenger of blood in Num. 35, Deut. 19, and Jos. 20, wherein cities of refuge are established to which an alleged murderer may flee and be protected. Yet in all of this, the role of the blood avenger is recognized as legitimate, and is an integral part of Jewish law enforcement. For even yet – centuries after Babel and the establishment of nations – no one had thought of putting capital punishment exclusively in the hands of civil government. No one yet thought that’s what the Noahic covenant required. So where do people get off putting capital punishment – as a matter of biblical interpretation – exclusively into government hands?

Let us not engage in eisegesis and read into Gen. 9 things that were never there. Let us plainly acknowledge God never said anywhere in Gen. 9 that capital punishment was an authority granted solely to civil governments, and never said that Noah was made a civil ruler or was made a federal head of all civil rulers to come in the future. Nor did God ever say that any terms of the Noahic covenant were grants of authority to civil governments.

I suggest that the modern belief that capital punishment is, and always was, exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil governments, doesn’t spring from a reading of Gen. 9:6 at all. Rather, it springs from a reading of Rom. 13:1-4 that is then retrofitted and superimposed onto Gen. 9. You know, the authorities which exist have been instituted by God, and the civil ruler does not bear the sword in vain, etc., etc. But I want you to ask a question you probably have never asked before. Given that Romans 13 was written at least 2400 years after the end of the flood, at what point exactly during that time did God place capital punishment authority in the hands of civil rulers? I must strongly caution you: if you think you will find any such thing in scripture, you will not, and you will search in vain.

There is a simple and fundamental truth, that although God clearly created, or instituted, the nations of the earth, He never instituted any civil government. I suppose we can argue whether God actually established ancient Israel’s government or not, but He clearly never instituted the civil government in any Gentile nation. I’m not saying that Rom. 13:1-7 is in any way wrong, I’m simply saying that the way most people read that text is wrong. Ah, but now you want an explanation, maybe. I won’t go into the biblical proof here, but will merely refer you to chapter 13 of A LONANG Commentary of Romans, authored by me. And the operative principle is this: God makes nations; men make governments.

The Scope of Authority

Under the Noahic covenant, the command of capital punishment covers murder only, for the penalty is specifically linked to a reckoning for the life of a person. It has always been understood to cover murders accomplished without any actual bloodshed, such as intentional suffocations, drowning, electrocution, poisoning, etc. Yet, beyond the case of murder, the command to inflict the death penalty does not apply. This is the rule for all the Gentile nations for all time.

By way of contrast, the Mosaic law designated 22 capital crimes for ancient Israel:

Offenses against God.

   1. Profaning sabbath. Ex. 31:14-15.

   2. Layman who “comes near” the tabernacle of God. Num. 1:51; 3:10; 18:7.

   3. Blasphemy. Lev. 24:16.

   4. Idolatry. Deut. 17:2-7. Ex. 22:20.

   5. False prophet (inciting to idolatry). Deut. 13:5-11.

   6. Spiritism or sorcery. Lev. 20:27. Ex. 22:18.

Rebellion against institutional authorities.

   7. Cursing parents. Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9.

   8. Striking parents. Ex. 21:15.

   9. Rebellion against parents. Deut. 21:18-21.

   10. Civil contempt. Joshua 1:18.

   11. Judicial contempt. Deut. 17:8-13.

Offenses against individuals.

   12. Murder. Ex. 21:12-14, Num. 35:16-34.

   13. Kidnaping. Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7.

   14. Harboring dangerous animal. Ex. 21:29.

   15. Infanticide. Lev. 20:2.

   16. Rape of a married or engaged woman. Deut. 22:25-27.

Sexual offenses.

   17. Adultery. Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22-29.

   18. Incest (mother, step-mother, daughter-in-law only). Lev. 20:11-12.

   19. Sodomy/homosexuality. Lev. 20:13.

   20. Lewdness (man marries woman and her mother). Lev. 20:14.

   21. Bestiality. Lev. 20:15-16. Ex. 22:19.

   22. Harlotry. Deut. 22:20-21.

Despite the clear language and meaning of Gen. 9:6, Gentiles rulers have raised all kinds of spurious arguments to expand the list of capital crimes. Thus, the ostensibly well-intentioned Puritans of Massachusetts in their Body of Liberties (1641), thinking themselves inheritors of, and bound by, the Mosaic law (which was only ever binding of biological Jews), did declare twelve capital crimes taken straight from the Mosaic law, even citing chapter and verse in their statute book to “validate” the enactment of the Jewish laws in America. Such capital crimes included worship of false gods, blasphemy, witchcraft, three forms of murder, bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, kidnaping, being a false witness in a capital case, and insurrection or public rebellion (essentially, treason).

Sorry to say, in their attempt to be good Christians, the settlers of Massachusetts wrought a great evil. We all know how well the punishment of witchcraft panned out. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Though, truth be told, it would be hard to find any nation on earth that did a better job of carrying out God’s command with respect to only murder. I suspect the very first crime made a capital offense in any nation would likely be treason. In spite of all the heinous offenses against nature and against God’s laws, the one that always grabs the first attention of any lawgiver is treason against the government of the lawgiver.

Even our beloved history of jurisprudence in England and America, went way overboard. William Blackstone, in his Commentaries Vol. 4, reported that capital crimes in England included forgery, robbery, compassing (thinking about) the king’s death, killing the king’s deer, and a whole host of offenses not derived from any natural law, but only based on social rights recognized by Parliament. In fact, he reckoned there were at least 160 capital offense in England in 1769. Even though Blackstone specifically quoted Gen. 9:6 and recited the binding nature of the Noahic covenant, he did not see that as any kind of limitation on Parliament, always deferring to the collective judgment of what was best for the country so long as it had been debated in public.

Thus, the very limited authority which God gave man has been grossly exaggerated and abused for many centuries, as nations continue to do so today. But I suppose no one should really be surprised by that.

Jesus and Capital Punishment

Some have objected to capital punishment on the basis that Jesus, in not condemning the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:2-11), impliedly ignored, modified or suspended the law of adultery and/or the law of capital punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth, and to even suggest such a thing shows a great disrespect for our Lord. Gal. 4:4 says Jesus was born under the law, meaning that from His birth, Jesus was a Jew obligated to follow and obey the Mosaic law in its entirety.

In Mat. 5:17-19, Jesus affirms this by explicitly stating He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill (that is keep, or obey) it. People get this scripture so inexcusably twisted around by saying that He fulfilled’ the law in a way which brought about its completion, which is just another way of saying He brought it to an end. This is functionally no different than abolishing the law, which Jesus expressly said He did not come to do. And why would He modify a law which, truth be told, He was the author of, since Jesus is Jehovah and the very Word (or voice) of God when the Mosaic laws were given? The very concept is ludicrous, which He made explicit by saying that not a stroke or letter of the law would expire before heaven and earth had passed away. If the entire ceremonial law of Moses had somehow been altered, it would make Jesus a big fat liar.

Which brings us back to Jn. 8, when the Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery saying, “the law commands us to stone such a woman, what do you say?” The Pharisees were a bunch for scheming deceivers, of course. They knew they could not trick Jesus by stating a full lie, so they told a half-truth. What does the law actually say?  “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”  Dt. 22:22.  In other words, the Pharisees conveniently neglected to mention the man, neglected to mention they knew who he was (she was caught in the act,’ remember), and neglected to mention that it takes two to commit adultery and they could only be prosecuted together.

But here they are, accusing the woman of a two-person crime, pretending they have everything they need to proceed. Which now presents them with a big problem – Dt. 22:22 has not been complied with.  As Jn. 8 points out, the Pharisees are there to test Jesus – test Him about what? Test Him whether He will, in fact, obey the law He is obligated by birth to obey, and the law He has promised to obey. The great irony being that those who wish to test whether Jesus followed the law have not followed the law themselves.

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”  What is that, a requirement that no one can prosecute anyone else unless he is sinless?  Of course not – if that were true, nor one could ever be prosecuted and law enforcement would entirely fail.  Was it a requirement that the accusers not be an adulterer themselves?  Hardly.  Though possible someone among them might have been an adulterer, the vast majority would not, and so they would still be able to prosecute.  Perhaps it was a requirement that “let him who has prosecuted this woman in full compliance of the law cast the first stone.”  Ah, here now, is something of which every person present was guilty.  None of them was without sin in making this prosecution.

“Neither do I condemn you.  Go and sin no more.”  Well guess what, even Jesus who was truly sinless, could not prosecute this woman because the man was still not present.  He was legally unable to prosecute her.  He wasn’t forgiving her.  He wasn’t challenging Gen. 9:6 or Dt. 22:22.  There was nothing he could do to judge her.  Plus, as Jesus famously said in Lk. 12:14, “who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”  Answer: no one.  That wasn’t Jesus’ job.  All He could possibly do was send the woman on her way.  Which He did.

The whole purpose of the pericope adulterae is to show that Jesus obeyed the law, just as He said He would.  Not to change, challenge, modify, abolish, terminate or maneuver around the law, for He Himself is the author of each and every law of God. Why on earth would He violate His own law? He would not. He could not. He did not.

Gen. 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Gen. 9:8-11 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

A Universal Covenant

Noah’s sacrifice of burnt offerings, together with the express use of covenant terminology here in chapter 9, calls to mind the account of Abraham in Gen. 15:7-21, where Abraham first sacrificed three animals and two birds, and then the Lord caused a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch to pass between them. After which the scripture says that God made a covenant with Abraham on that day. Gen. 15:18. All the promises and commands of God disclosed to Noah in chapter 9 are easily identified as a divine covenant, in this case the Noahic covenant, between God and all mankind. Thus, the Noahic covenant stands among the handful of divine covenants revealed in the Old Testament, including the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and the Davidic covenant.

These O.T. divine covenants constitute the bulk of the laws of nature’s God, by which we mean the laws of God not originating in the creation of the world as with the law of nature, but originating afterwards by special (that is, verbal) revelation, to be found only in the holy scriptures. These divine covenants are of supreme importance, because they essentially organize and define the relationships between God and men throughout time. There are no stray or independent laws of God floating around out there which are unconnected to a divine covenant. All of God’s laws not revealed in nature are either imbedded within a divine covenant, or were delivered under a specific covenant for the purpose of implementing it. Thus, the Mosaic laws were all issued under the aegis of the Ten Commandments for the purpose of implementing them in Jewish society.

But I would not have you think that the Noahic covenant was the first such divine covenant between God and men. For the Dominion Mandate (Gen. 1:28-30), also known as the Adamic covenant, was the first such divine covenant. Some people are thrown by the fact there was no sacrifice made, or covenant terminology used in Gen. 1. In fact, it is not even specifically made applicable to anyone’s descendants, as other divine covenants are. Let me digress for a moment and explain why I think that was the case.

I attribute the unique circumstances of the Adamic covenant to the fact that at the time, Adam and Eve had not yet sinned. In that condition, they were in perfect communion with God, had no barriers in their understanding with God, nor did God lack credibility in their eyes, for they simply accepted all God said as being completely true. In addition, they had no sin needing to be atoned for or covered, no separation from God to be overcome by faith or belief, and no reason to pledge themselves for they had not yet been in any way disobedient. In other words, there was simply no need for any solemnization procedures or words binding their future behavior. They were already perfectly in tune with the will of God, and neither party required any assurances of future conduct.

Thus, I number the Adamic covenant among the handful of divine covenants in the O.T., meaning five covenants exactly – no more and no less – the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic. The first two of which are universal, applying to all people today without exception, and the last three being peculiar to the nation of Israel. Every single law of God revealed in the O.T. not traceable to the creation account was implemented pursuant to or as part of one of these five divine covenants. But all five such covenants are distinguished from the New Covenant in Christ in that they all apply solely on the basis of biological ancestry, whereas the covenant in Christ ignores biology entirely and applies solely on the basis of faith or belief.

Now, as to the Noahic covenant specifically, it is unique in that it is the only divine covenant expressly made applicable to the birds and all land animals. However, the language used here recalls the Lord’s covenant with the day and His covenant with the night mentioned in Jer. 33:20, 25. Both the animal kingdom and the fixed order of day and night are indicative of the natural world, which can be traced back to the original creation week. The significance is not that the animals are consenting to the covenant, but that their inclusion indicates the covenant is intended to be permanent – as long as the natural order exists. Only when the natural order is itself destroyed, will the Noahic covenant come to an end.

Gen. 9:12-17 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

The Sign of the Covenant

As an additional indication of its permanence, the Noahic covenant is given a visible sign. As long as the rainbow is visible in the sky, the Noahic covenant is still in effect in its entirety. In other words, the Noahic covenant is a package deal. Its provisions cannot be severed from each other – the rainbow covers all of its provisions. Thus, of course, the rainbow signifies that God will not curse the ground again, not kill all the living creatures again, not flood the earth again, and not disrupt the seasons or night and day. Which is the extent to which the rainbow is generally recognized by even most Christians.

But in fact the rainbow is a visible sign of the re-affirmation of our duty to procreate and fill the earth. The rainbow is a sign of the fear and dread between men and animals, birds and fish. The rainbow signifies that every moving thing has been added as food for us, in addition to the seed-bearing plants. The rainbow is a sign that capital punishment has been instituted for all people until the end of time. And the rainbow is a sign that all the people of the earth are descendants of Noah, who are bound to obey and benefit from the terms of the Noahic covenant. There is much more to the rainbow than just the promise not to flood the world again.

It is reminiscent of the sign of circumcision given to Abraham in Gen. 17, for circumcision is not merely a sign of ethnicity, as it were, indicating that a male is a physical descendant of Abraham. Circumcision also signifies all that the Abrahamic covenant entails – that Abraham would become the father of many nations, that kings shall come from him, that God would establish a future covenant with the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites), and that all the land of Canaan would become the everlasting possession of the Jews. Far from being merely a sign of religious or community belonging, each circumcised Jew carries a sign in his body of the promise of national restoration and territorial possession.

It is no accident that both the rainbow and circumcision carry this significance as well – they are each a physical sign of a physical (biological) reality. For it is not possible for a physical sign to indicate a spiritual reality. Physical signs indicate physical things, and spiritual things must be indicated by spiritual signs. Thus, in Christianity there are no physical signs of a life that has been redeemed by Christ. The circumcision of the heart’ (Rom. 2:29) and the sealing of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 1:13) are both invisible and do not lend themselves to any physical manifestation. It is impossible that anyone should be able to look at another person and discern whether they are a true believer in Christ or not. Only God can look at a person’s heart and determine if they are truly saved.

Of course, that doesn’t stop people from trying to look righteous, whether it is by making the sign of the cross, by a public baptism, and wearing special clothes or jewelry, but these prove nothing. Thus, I find it amusing that people sometimes argue the primary significance of the Noahic covenant is spiritual. Usually such arguments center around the salvation of Noah and his family through the flood, or the grace of God in restraining His judgment by not destroying everyone including Noah. Both of which arguments go to the circumstances surrounding the flood experience, and have no relation to the words of the covenant. For the express words of the Noahic covenant have nothing spiritual in them, dealing only with the physical relationship between people, animals, and the earth. And, as far as we know, the experience of going through the flood changed no one’s heart, brought no one to faith, and no one other than Noah is ever said to have been righteous before God.

People make the same arguments regarding the Adamic covenant, that its importance lies in God’s covering of Adam and Eve with animal skins after the Fall. But the Fall is not part of the covenant, which happened sometime later, and circumstances do not a covenant make. The express words of the Adamic covenant (the Dominion Mandate) have only to do with the relationship between husband and wife, their children, and the natural environment. There is nothing spiritual about them.

In fact, I will be so bold as to say that none of the O.T. covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic) were spiritual at all. Not one of them prescribed the means of personal salvation, and not one of them passed the faith of the persons entering into the covenant to their descendants. Merely being a person covered under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants made no one righteous or redeemed. Which tells me that God Himself is concerned with much more than our spiritual well-being, and our conception of Him needs to reflect that fact.

Noahide Laws Distinguished

The terms of the Noahic covenant are not to be confused with the so-called Noahide laws. The Noahide laws come from the Jewish Talmud, which is essentially equivalent to a theological commentary written by various rabbis regarding the scriptures. For that reason, the Noahide laws are extra-biblical and are not authoritative – which doesn’t make any of them necessarily wrong, per se, but it makes the possibility that God delivered this set of rules to the sons of Noah (or to Adam, as some claim) extremely unlikely.

According to Jewish tradition, the Noahide laws are universally binding on all nations, much as the terms of the Noahic covenant are – but without a covenant framework which makes them binding. Supposedly, a Gentile who abides by the Noahide laws may be considered righteous,’ if that person also acknowledges that the laws are of divine origin. However, this essentially makes righteousness before God a matter of law-keeping, which is a very Jewish idea, but not in accord with the standard of righteousness attributed to Abraham (which was based on belief, not obedience), nor the standard of faith in Christ (also based in faith, not obedience).

In any event, the Noahide laws are as follows:

1. Do not worship idols or deny God.
2. Do not murder.
3. Do not steal.
4. Do not engage in adultery or other sexual immorality.
5. Do not blaspheme or curse God.
6. Do not eat flesh torn from a living animal.
7. Establish courts and legal systems to ensure obedience of these laws.

As you can see, the first four of these laws are borrowed directly from the Ten Commandments, which I have remarked elsewhere are binding on all people not because they were given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai, but because they are each traceable to the creation and are part of the universal laws of nature. The fifth law is similar to the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain, and in any event, is also traceable to the creation account and is a part of the laws of nature. The sixth law is essentially the same as the provision of the Noahic covenant not to eat flesh with its blood. As for the seventh Noahide law (courts of justice), I’d be very surprised if any such courts ever existed before Babel (when the nations were first formed), and probably not until some years afterward as those early nations began to acquire governments.

On the whole, I am not persuaded that the Noahide laws were ever delivered by God to anyone as a set of universal rules, and even less convinced that they set forth a standard of righteousness for Gentiles prior to the advent of Christ. I place them in the category of Jewish folklore, at best.

Gen. 9:18-19 The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed.

Gen. 9:20-29 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.”

A Minor Incident; A Major Prophecy

Scripture never tells us what Noah did – occupationally – before he began building the ark. But it seems that after the flood he became a farmer and a winemaker. And in the course of things, he became naked and drunk in his own tent. Notice that in this narrative, no fault or sin is imputed to Noah himself for this. I find reassurance in the fact that none of this made him any less righteous before God, who has the capacity to overlook ordinary human excesses and lapses of judgment. Ham, on the other hand, walks in on his father, and instead of showing the good sense in covering his father, runs and tells his brothers about it. They, being wiser, cover Noah’s nakedness until he wakes up.

I look at this incident as being somewhat trivial. After all, in Lev. 18, in describing the sins of the Canaanites, the phrase “uncover the nakedness of your father” has a very definite sexual connotation and refers to sexual immorality. But when Ham sees his father naked, there is no suggestion whatsoever that anything of a sexual nature is involved. He merely sees, but does nothing about it, whereas his brothers – possibly out of a desire to spare Noah some personal shame – cover him up. But the incident is noteworthy for its prophetic implications.

For many years – shamefully – this account was used to justify African slavery in America and elsewhere, as though Noah’s curse of Canaan was somehow an indictment of all colored people to a life of servitude in favor of the white man. Supposedly, as the African continent is populated largely by the descendants of Ham, Noah’s curse applied to all Africans. This is nowhere supported by the text, of course, as Ham was not cursed, but Canaan was, and the Canaanites never lived in Africa. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Noah and his sons were, in fact, “white people,” since the development of both very light skinned and very dark skinned people would not have occurred until after the dispersion from Babel when the nations were first formed.

However, I do see the effects of Noah’s curse of Canaan playing out in the world today, as the descendants of the Canaanites of old are in fact the people living in Gaza today, that is, the Palestinians – the Philistines of old. And the curse of the Canaanites is to be the servant of servants, or in effect, a subjugated people, often conquered by the Semites and Japhethites. For that is pretty much what we see today – not outright slavery, as such – but the Palestinians are a universally despised and unwanted people. Nobody else wants them in their country, for they are consummate troublemakers. And of course, they universally hate all Jews and want to see the eradication of Israel, a hatred they are taught from birth.

The destruction of Gaza and the descendants of the Philistines living there has long been foretold.

For the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor. Baldness has come upon Gaza; Ashkelon has perished. O remnant of their valley, how long will you gash yourselves? Jer. 47:4-5.

Thus says the LORD: “For three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because they carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom. So I will send a fire upon the wall of Gaza, and it shall devour her strongholds. I will cut off the inhabitants from Ashdod, and him who holds the scepter from Ashkelon; I will turn my hand against Ekron, and the remnant of the Philistines shall perish,” says the Lord GOD.” Amo. 1:6-8.

And if you’re wondering what the future holds for Gaza, the scriptures address that, too.

For Gaza shall be deserted, and Ashkelon shall become a desolation; Ashdod’s people shall be driven out at noon, and Ekron shall be uprooted. Woe to you inhabitants of the seacoast, you nation of the Cherethites! The word of the LORD is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines; and I will destroy you until no inhabitant is left. And you, O seacoast, shall be pastures, with meadows for shepherds and folds for flocks. The seacoast shall become the possession of the remnant of the house of Judah, on which they shall graze, and in the houses of Ashkelon they shall lie down at evening. For the LORD their God will be mindful of them and restore their fortunes. Zph. 2:4-7.

So this little encounter with Noah, trivial in itself, is merely an occasion for making one of the more significant prophecies in the history of the world.

Gen. 9:28-29 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. All the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died.

This verse, as I see it, is essentially a fitting conclusion to the genealogy of chapter 5. But it is put here because it concludes the discussion of the life of Noah.