Bible Studies In The Word of God

GENESIS 9

 

 

Verse 1. This verse is a repetition of the command given the first man and wife as it is written in 1:28. The command to replenish the earth, not merely a certain locality, would require that they spread abroad as reproduction progressed. And this will explain some of the mistakes made by the people recorded in 11th chapter.

Verse 2. The fall of man did not alter the condition of subjugation of the lower orders of creation under man as has been taught. For this is practically the same as was declared in the first chapter. Besides, Jas. 3:7 states that such subjugation had taken place in the time of that writer. The only way that a member of the lower order can overcome the human Is through its superior physical strength, while man does not effect his control over the beasts by his physical strength but by his intellect. This is one unanswerable argument In favor of the complete superiority of man In spite of the theory of evolutionists.

Verse 3. This is the first instance that we read of the privilege given to man to eat the flesh of animals. We have no information In the scriptures as to why this is.

Verses 4, 5. Whether it be man or beast, the blood is the life. This forms the basis or a part of the basis for various commandments. The first one mentioned is in the paragraph under consideration. It is even stated here that vengeance is to be had on beasts that cause the death of a man. This law was made still more specific as seen in Ex. 21:28. And the executioner is pointed out here to be the “man’s brother." Of course it will be seen in numerous instances as we pursue our study of the Bible that a man's brother is not confined to the strict fleshly relation usually meant in this expression, but whoever is his nearest kin.

Verse 6. Here we have the law of capital punishment proclaimed for the first time. This law has never been repealed by the Lord. Not only does God here state that said punishment is to be meted out to a murderer but no other punishment was ever given by divine law for said crime. It is a well established principle of Justice that all law must have some motive for its existence. And as long as that basis is in existence that law Is in force. In this case the basis for the law is the fact that man is made in the Image of God. This is unavoid¬ably set forth by the word fob In di¬rect connection with the law. If this capital law had been based on some later date, then the law would not he permanent But it is as true as it ever was that man is still made In the image of God. If positive proof in the scriptures were thought necessary it will be seen in the following: 1 Cor. 11:7; Col. 3:10; Jas. 3:9. Since then it is still true that man is made in the image of God it ia stiil the law of God that the murderer should he put to death. Not only so. but this punishment is to be administered by man, not God. It is so stated in the verse under consideration. It is claimed that capita) punishment was under the Old Testament law but not in force now. In the first place, this puniahment was decreed long before the law of Moses was given. Besides, it 1b not a law that is of the charac¬ter to he affected by any certain dis¬pensation of time or religion. But even granting the above argument (?), It still will not hold against the plain teaching found in the New Testament. In Romans 13:4 Paul speaks about an officer of the law of the government and calls him the minister of God. Here he states that '"he beareth not the sword in vain." Now any one knows that there is only one use for the sword and that is to take life. And yet this very officer who bears the sword to take life is said by the apos¬tle to be a minister of God. Therefore Paul here endorses the law of capital punishment. Furthermore, in Acts 25:11 this same Paul uses these words: “If I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Now if Paul had not favored capital punishment he could not have referred to the possibility of doing any thing worthy of death. And even had he not endorsed such a form of punishment and they were determined to administer it to him, ho could have said that he could not prevent It. But he could have re¬fused bis submission. But he did not merely say that he would expect to die if they decided he was worthy, but said he would not refuse to die. That is the same as consenting to it before-hand, provided he had done anything worthy of death. Therefore it is plainly taught even in the New Testament that capital punishment is God’s form of punishment for a murderer.

Verse 8. See comments at verse 1.

Verses 9-17. These verses are grouped Into one paragraph because they have to do with one subject, that of the covenant between God and man never again to bring another destruction by water. And the word that Is the center of controversy is the word set The question is whether God here created the rainbow for the first time or that it had been already in exist¬ence but used here for the first time for the special purpose stated. I am sure the former Is the correct view and shall give my reasons. First, I shall give the original word which is Nathan and defined thus: “a primitive root; to give, used with great latitude of application (put, make, etc.)”—Strong. Among the different words in the A. V. used to translate it are the following: appoint, 11 times: give, 1023 times; make, 108 times; set, 101 times; yield, 14 times. Some of these words indfcate the thought of its being used for this special purpose while others indicate that of its being made or created for the purpose. This also agrees with Strong’s definition which admits both put and make. Therefore, the subject must be considered from the standpoint of logical reasoning. To insist that the rainbow was already in existence because it is a law of nature is to say that God had to establish all the law of nature at the same time. But that would be assuming the very point in controversy. We might as well argue that thorns and thistles were created at the same time with all other plants since they are a product today of nature. And yet we know from chapter 3:17, 18 that they were not created until after the first sin of man. Again, it is suggested that it had not rained before this time and thus the bow, while a natural appearance now was something new at the time of Noah. But in that case the cloud would also have been something new. Yet the language indicates that the cloud was already a phenomenon that had been seen before. Notice it says, “when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud.” Had the whole thing been unseen before it would have called for a statement something as follows: "I will create a cloud and also a bow so that you may remember my covenant not to destroy the earth again by a flood.” But if the cloud was created so as to bring the bow, then by not bringing the cloud at all, no need would have existed for a sign of assurance against a flood, for nothing would have been in their sight to even suggest the possibility of a flood. And if no cloud had existed as yet and God had kept the vegetation alive through some miraculous application of moisture, then what call was there for the changing of his plan?

Verses 18. 19. Mention is made here of the fact that Ham was the father of Canaan. This doubtless is given to the reader as a “tip" for the coming importance of this man.

Verses 20-23. See notes at 2:25, 3:7; 3:21. From those instances it can be known what had become the established principle of modesty as to the body of the male as well as the female. Thus it was considered improper to take advantage of one’s shameful exposure of himself. The mere fact that Ham saw the condition of his father as one might have done unavoidably was not what condemned him. But the first definition of the word NAGAD which is the word for “told” is "a primitive root; properly to front, I. e., stand boldly out opposite”—Strong.    And this definition would evidently be apt in this case since Ham could have taken the same precautions of modesty that his brothers did. But he did not and only went to them with the story after having left his father’s shameful condition unchanged. This conduct, which was in defiance of the principle of modesty that God set forth in the case of Adam, doubtless was what brought upon him and his descendants the terrible curse which soon follows.

Verse 24. The fact that enough time has passed since coming out of the ark for grapes to grow and the Juice be allowed to ferment is another ex¬ample of the brevity of the Biblical accounts- And no blame seems to be attached to Noah for having become so drunken from it that he was in the sleep or stupor caused by the wine. No teaching had yet been given on the subject that we know of. Furthermore, since he was in his tent, the place of his own privacy, he could not be Justly accused of complete indifference in the matter. At least, the most   that can safely be said that the circumstances Justify 1B that he was al-lowing himself to be more careless than he would have done, even though he is in a place where he had a right to be, and this was because of the wine. And all of this was no reason for Ham's conduct which not only showed disrespect for his father, but irreverence for the teaching of God in the example of the first man.

Verse 25. This is under the Patriarchal Dispensation in which the father of the family represented the authority of God. His predictions and instructions were therefore inspired. (See on this point 20:7.) Therefore we are to take the statements he made here as inspired. Note also that nothing is said directly about Ham but instead it was about his descendants as represented coming through his most prominent son which was Canaan. Brethren. This is from ACH and defined “a primitive root: a brother (used in the widest sense of literal relationship and metaphorical affinity or resemblance)"—Strong. Thus we are to understand Noah to mean those nations of the world which, like Canaan, came from a common stock, Noah, who is now the sole remaining head of the races to follow. Servant of servants. A glance at next chapter will show us that the inferior nations sprang from Canaan including the people called Canaanites and Sodomites and also related to the Ethiopians and other African tribes. The predition of Noah is that the descendants of Ham will be seen in the attitude of serfdom toward other races. Present day conditions support this conclusion as may be observed at every prominent instance of the subjugation and servile demeanor of the Negro.

Verses 26, 27. Sham became the ancestor of the Jewish people while Japheth came to represent the better grades of the nations generally referred to as Gentiles. And the prediction in verse 27 is significant. For fifteen hundred years the Gentiles were shut out from the society of the Jews in their religious relationship. But at last the barrier was taken down and both Jews and Gentiles (descendants of Japheth and Shem) came together. See Eph. 2:13, 14; 3:6.

Verse 28, 29. This is simply a brief Bumming up of the great life of a great man who outlived the first man by twenty years.