This post is a bit longer than most but there is much of interest here, including eschatological insights. Its importance warrants a bit more focus as the judgment by water is a prototype of the end-times judgment by fire. The story of Noah is also one of the longer pericopes, full of practical and eschatological teachings. But before discussing its eschatological importance, we will discuss some noteworthy aspects of the story including some fascinating structural details followed by some important ethical teachings. We will begin with an analysis of some of the numerology of the story.
Flood Numerology
The Number 7
Given that the flood narrative ends in new creation, one could expect numerical significance of regeneration. Like the Genesis 1 creation-account and the Revelation 21 regeneration-account, the flood narrative reveals creation numerology, most significantly the presence of the number seven. Cassuto notes:
The number seven, which, as we have seen, is the number of perfection, is mentioned explicitly in the text many times; periods of seven days (vii 4; viii 10, 12); seven pairs of clean animals, and likewise of the birds of the air (vii 2-3); and if we count the number of times that God spoke to Noah, we shall find that they total exactly seven (vi 13; vii 1; viii 15; ix 1, 8, 12, 17). Similarly in the second paragraph, in connection with the construction of the ark, the stem עָשָׂה `asah [“made”] occurs seven times; in paragraphs 3-5, in regard to the entrance into the ark, the stem בּוֹא bow’ [“come”] is found seven times; the verb שָׁחַת shachath, which appears, as I have stated, at the beginning and the end of the section, is used in all seven times; in the last two paragraphs, with reference to the covenant, the word covenantoccurs seven times; the wordwater is employed twenty-one times – seven times three; the word flesh appears fourteen times – seven times two; Noah’s name, which occurs also in the continuation of the pericope, is found in the whole pericope thirty-five times – seven times five. [1]
The narrative also reveals the presence of sexagesimal numbers including six hundred and twelve. Six hundred is significant as it was Noah’s age at the time of the flood. At the flood’s conclusion, Noah’s age is given as six hundred and one, a flag that Noah has entered his seventh century, another seven indicative of creation completed. It signals Sabbatical rest with the new creation.
The Number 40
The number forty is also prevalent in the narrative with the rains lasting “forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:17). Following the flood, Noah waited forty days before uncovering a window in the ark and sending out a raven (Genesis 8:6). Forty is often thought to be a number associated with testing, trial, chastisement or probation. [2]
Forty is a number applied to the tabernacle, temple and to the receipt of the law at Sinai. The tabernacle was constructed with twenty frames composing both the north and south sides. These frames were held up with forty silver pedestals on each side (Exodus 26:19, 21;36:24, 26). The temple was also marked with “forties” – the main hall in front of the temple was forty cubits long (1 Kings 6:17) and the ten lavers in the outer court each held forty baths (1 Kings 7:38). Ezekiel’s temple had a main hall forty cubits long. and enclosed courts at the corners of the outer court forty cubits long.
These occurrences of “forty” were spatial (versus temporal in the flood narrative), yet temporal occurrences of “forty” occur with Moses at Sinai. In Exodus 24:15-18, Moses ascended Mount Sinai while the glory of the Lord settled upon the mountain. He waiting six days and on the seventh, the Lord called Moses, who entered the cloud and remained there forty days and forty nights.
Given God didn’t summon Moses until the seventh day, it seems likely the seventh day was a Sabbath. If so, the covenant was confirmed on a Sabbath (a seven), Moses ascended, waiting until the next Sabbath (a second seven day wait) followed by communion with God for forty days and forty nights, the numerical pattern paralleling the timing of the flood narrative of Genesis (Genesis 7:4, 10, 17).
Moses spent another forty days and forty nights that followed the incident of the golden calf during which he recorded the words of the covenant onto a new set of tablets (Exodus 34:28). [3] Though this second period of forty days on Mount Sinai is not explicitly preceded by a Sabbath and seven-day wait, the narrative includes two sevens preceding the words “Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights.” The first seven is found in vs 18, “for seven days eat bread made without yeast.” The second seven is found in vs 21, “six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest”. Thus, the pattern of seven, seven, forty is preserved.
While these patterns are faint, they support that forty (as used in the flood narrative) links to the covenant of Sinai, a covenant made in preparation for Israel’s entrance into a new land, recapitulating Noah’s entrance into a new earth. The tie also suggests that the forty days of flood may likewise be tied to the covenantal promise of Genesis 6:18. [4] The pattern of sevens and forties of the flood pericope is Interwoven into a chiastic structure, dividing the flood into a de-creative and a re-creative part (Table 1):
Table 1: Chiastic Interplay of Sevens and Forties in the Flood Narrative
7 days of waiting for flood (7:4)
7 days of waiting for flood (7:10)
40 days of flood (7:17a)
150 days of water triumphing (7:24)
150 days of water waning (8:3)
40 days’ wait (8:6)
7 days’ wait (8:10)
7 days’ wait (8:12) [5]
Significance of the Flood Narrative’s Dates
Various Proposed Flood Timings
The flood is marked with specific calendar dates that highlight important times in the deluge. Recorded calendar dates are a first here in Scripture, hinting their importance. Genesis 7:11 marks the first calendar date, the start of the flood. It is followed by the date the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4), the date the mountains became visible (Genesis 8:5), the date the waters dried from the earth (Genesis 8:13) and the final date marks when the earth was completely dried out.
The dates are interwoven within the chiasmus of times/durations of the flood epic. From these dates and durations, a number of different flood sequences have been proposed. Rashi constructed a 365-day timeline with 40 days flood, 150 days waters building, 118 days waters receding and 57 days drying. [6] Ramban has suggested a 370-day timeline with 40 days flood, 110 days of water building (150 days total for flood and building), 163 days waters receding (73 days to mountain tops appearing and 90 additional days receding) and 57 days drying. [7] This explanation requires acceptance that the month of Noah’s day was a 30-day month rather than the 29.5-day lunar month.
Mitchell [8] and others [9] have suggested a flood chronology of 371 days. [10] Najm and Guillaume have postulated that the recurrent appearance of sevens suggests a Sabbath cycle where God informed Noah on the 9th day of the second month that the flood would come in seven days (at the end of the next Sabbath – the 16th of the second month). It is claimed from this chronology that the 1st day of the first month, and the 27th day of the second month would be Sabbaths. [11]
Najm and Guillaume argue in favor of a 364 day-year Sabbatical calendar where the flood episode would last 374 days. The adoption of a Sabbatical calendar requires treating the 150-day intervals as secondary and the time the ark was afloat as an indeterminate time gap. [12] Another theory attempts to show most dates as Sabbaths though this theory requires that the two 150-day intervals be approximate. [13]
The Best Alternative
Cassuto provides a chronology that suggests God’s initial communication to Noah (Genesis 6:13) occurred by tradition on the first day of the first month and that Noah invested the next forty days preparing the ark. God’s second communication with Noah then becomes the tenth of the second month with the flood starting seven days later on the seventeenth of the second month.
Though following a lunar chronology, Cassuto argues that the 150-day duration can be considered five months much like 90 days is considered three months today. From this structure, Cassuto notes that the ark was uncovered forty days after the mountain peaks were seen, on the tenth day of the eleventh month, nine months after God spoke to Noah the second time. Seven days later, the seventeenth of the eleventh month Noah sent out the dove, nine months after the beginning of the flood and four months after the ark came to rest.
His conclusion is that the flood event lasted 365 days, one solar year. [14] His timing is realized using lunar months with rounding – 150 days as five months and 30 days as one month (the 40-day periods are rounded to one lunar month plus ten days). His timing can be seen in Figure 1. The advantage of this approach is that it brings the lunar dating into alignment with the solar calendar. His approach agrees with Finegan. [15]
Finegan argues that timekeeping was performed using the lunar cycle in antiquity which was 29.530588 days, a period of time conveniently approximated by 30 days, however it results in a difference between the lunar and solar year of 11 days (twelve months of 29.5 days comprises a lunar year of 354 days versus twelve months of thirty days comprises a 360-day year versus a solar year of 365.25 days in the solar year).
Finegan notes that both methods – the lunar month of 29.5 days and its approximation of 30-day months – were used in the flood narrative. Thus, the one hundred fifty-day period of the flood narrative is five months. Likewise, the flood dried off the earth in the 1st day of the 1st month with Noah going forth on the 27th day of the 2nd month which counterbalances the start of the flood which began on the 17th day of the 2nd month of the prior year. Thus, a full lunar year ended on the 16th day of the 2nd month, exactly 11 days short of the solar year. The 11-day difference is seen from the 16th day of the 2nd month and Noah’s dis-embarkment on the 27th day of the 2nd month. Thus, both methods are in agreement with the flood spanning exactly one solar year.
The flood narrative not only displays a duration of one solar year, but its start is fixed to the calendar as the 17th day of the second month (Genesis 7:11) and to Noah’s age of 600 years. It is the first occurrence of a fixed date in Scripture. It is complemented with a second fixed date of the 1st day of the 1st month of Noah’s 601st year (Genesis 8:13). These dates are augmented by other dates including the 17th day of the 7th month (Genesis 8:4), the 1st day of the 10th month (Genesis 8:5) and the 27th day of the 2nd month (Genesis 8:14).
Each marks important developments within the flood narrative and allow one to determine the length of the flood as one solar year, completing a cycle which starts in judgment and de-creation and ends in blessing and re-creation. The other dates and durations allow the key events to be fleshed in. The doublets of 40 days, 150 days, 9 months and 11 months reveal a structured, balanced account with God in control of all events, their occurrences and durations according to His purposes. Everything is measured and determined with precision.
Figure 1: Timing of Flood Narrative Proposed by Cassuto
Structure of the Flood Narrative
Moving to the structure, the flood account is a relatively long pericope when compared with earlier scriptural narratives. Yet it is a highly structured literary unit using chiasmus to counterbalance it. There are numerous elements that all interplay within the drama in a surprisingly well-thought-out way.
Given the length of the Noah passage, it is unexpected that the author could consistently interweave so many counterbalancing aspects. A number of varying chiastic structures have been derived. We will highlight a few. The first structural element is within the drama itself, which unfolds in counterbalancing scenes of monologues and narratives as follows (Table 2):
Table 2: Chiastic Structure of the Flood Drama
Divine monologue to Noah, preceded by reflections on Noah & mankind’s behavior (Genesis 6:9b-21)
Narrative: Noah main actor (Genesis 6:22)
Divine monologue addressed to Noah (Genesis 7:1-4)
Narrative: Noah and animals main actors, God minor role (Genesis 7:5-16)
Narrative: the rising waters main actor, Noah et al. passive (Genesis 7:17-24)
Narrative: the falling waters main actor, God minor role (Genesis 8:1-5)
Narrative: Noah and birds main actors (Genesis 8:6-14)
Divine monologue addressed to Noah (Genesis 8:15-17)
Narrative: Noah main actor (Genesis 8:18-19)
Divine monologue to Noah, preceded by reflections on Noah’s & mankind’s behavior (Gen 8:20-9:17)16]
A second key structural element is seen in the overall layout of the story which should include Genesis 5:28 with Noah’s introduction into the genealogy of Adam. The story of Noah spans from Genesis 5:28 through the close of chapter 9.
Many commentators divide the events of Noah’s life into two discrete stories: the flood and the incident of drunkenness that followed. It would appear however, that the two stories are carefully linked. Noah is first found in Genesis 5:29 where the great prophecy of his name is given. The story appears book-ended by genealogical references made of Noah in Genesis 5:32 and Genesis 9:28. These genealogical references form an inclusio, the first referencing Noah’s age at his sons’ birth and the latter his age at death. [17]
Genesis 6:1-8 forms a prologue while Genesis 9:20-28 forms the epilogue. The counterbalancing chiasmus contrasts Noah’s drunkenness to human-angel intermarriage, unifying the two into one integrated unit. The author of Genesis draws comparisons between the sexual indiscretions of the sons of God in the old creation with the sexual sins of the sons of Noah in the new creation, linking these episodes. Each has prophetic significance within the linked structure. The structure of the account evidences chiasmus throughout (see Table 3):
Table 3: Chiastic Structure of Noah’s Life
Primary Genealogical introduction of Noah’s life (5:28-32)
Prologue: Sexual indiscretions of the Sons of God & pronouncement of judgment (6:1-8)
Transitional introduction & secondary genealogical reference (6:9-10)
Creation’s violent disorder brings de-creation judgment but promise of covenant (6:11-22)
Command to “enter ark” (7:1-10)
Beginning of flood (7:11-16)
The rising flood (7:17-24)
God remembers Noah
The receding flood (8:1-5)
Drying of the earth (8:6-14)
Command to “leave ark” (8:15-19)
God’s resolve to preserve new creation’s order & establish covenant (8:20-9:17)
Transitional conclusion & secondary genealogical reference (9:18-19)
Epilogue: Sexual indiscretions of sons of Noah and the pronouncement of judgment (9:20-27)
Primary Genealogical conclusion of Noah’s life (9:28-29)
Analysis of the Chiastic Structure
Within the chiasmus are a primary and secondary genealogical reference. Within the primary genealogical reference are the bounds of the life of Noah and within the secondary genealogical reference is the account of the deluge. The primary genealogical conclusion of Noah’s life connects the account of Noah with the genealogy of Genesis 10, the Table of Nations. Likewise, the epilogue ties to the prologue yet follows as a prophetic prologue of the events to follow in the nations.
The climax of the account of Noah’s life is Genesis 8:1, that God remembered Noah. The events leading up to Genesis 8:1 all chronicle the destruction of creation resulting from God’s judgment on man’s wickedness while each mirrored event following Genesis 8:1 chronicles the regeneration of creation resulting from God’s grace toward Noah and his family. A true understanding of the narrative comes from understanding Noah’s name found in Genesis 5:29:
29 He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.”
Noah is the one appointed to bring comfort – literally “rest” from the cursed ground, as Noah’s name means rest. [18] Noah’s name reflects back to the creation account of Genesis 1 (see Genesis 2:2-3), while hinting at a greater-than-Noah appointed to bring God’s rest from the greater curse of sin in Eden (Genesis 3:14-19). Noah’s introduction into Adam’s genealogy provides a link between creation and new creation. Noah’s name suggests he will initiate a new creation, providing rest to those toiling under the curse on the ground.
Following Noah’s introduction are the sexual sins of the sons of God, serving as the prologue to the flood account. In this brief pericope, God sees the wickedness of mankind, their inclination toward constant evil and regrets having created them. He resolves to wipe them from the face of the earth.
Their sin follows that of Adam yet amplified to a greater level of wickedness requiring not only their destruction but the destruction of all creation. Against the solemn pronouncement of Genesis 6:7, Noah by contrast “found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8). With judgment introducing the events of Noah’s life, the story transitions with a second genealogical reference of Noah and his three sons, a transition explaining why Noah found favor in God’s eyes – he was righteous, blameless among a people that were excessively wicked (Genesis 6:9). The contrast is sharpened in Genesis 6:11 with a description of the times and the peoples of the earth. They were corrupt and the earth had become full of violence.
Structure: De-creation
Excessive violence appears to be at the root of God’s judgment though a hint may exist in the Hebrew הארץ והנה נשחתה כי־השחית כל־בשר את־דרכו על־הארץ, suggesting that all flesh on the earth had corrupted its way, a possible reason for the earth’s destruction (see the Sons of God). God sovereignly announces His intention to destroy His creation, commanding Noah to build an ark.
This is the first of four divine speeches (Genesis 6:13-22; 7:1-10; 8:15-19; 9:1-17) – four indicative of earthly creation, emphasizing God’s complete and total destruction of the earth. There is talion seen in God’s declared judgment. The earth was corrupt (שָׁחַת shachath)and all flesh had corrupted (shachath) its way, a thrice-made accusation (Genesis 6:11-12), emphasizing the completeness of the corruption, portending the universal judgment upon all creation.
God’s judgment to destroy the earth was literally to corrupt (shachath) it, an act of talion fitting the crime. The earth would reap what it had sown. Violence is destruction, demanding destruction in return. The two-fold pronouncement of God’s first divine address to shachath His creation (Genesis 6:13, 17) is counterbalanced with His two-fold assurance never again to shachath His creation by water in His fourth divine address (Genesis 9:11, 15).
Noteworthy in the construction of the ark is the instruction to make it with three levels, much like creation with its three bounded regions of the heavens, the earth and the deep. This instruction appears to be no accident. The ark is fashioned after the cosmos, a miniature model of creation to carry the “seed” of all lifeforms into the new creation.
It is creation in miniature, a mobile mini-cosmos, a vehicle to shuttle all lifeforms from the old world subject to destruction into the new creation to follow the flood. [19] Though God has resolved to destroy “every creature that has the breath of life in it”, He assures Noah that He will establish His covenant with him. God would save Noah, bringing him through the destruction. [20] Noah, his family, every kind of food and every kind of creature would be housed safely within the ark.
Immediately following the command to build the ark comes the second divine speech with the command to enter the ark, where we encounter the first apparent inconsistency in the numbering of the animals that are to enter the ark. Genesis 6:19 commands Noah to bring two of every kind of animal into the ark, literally “pairs”. [21] Genesis 7:2 however, specifies that Noah bring seven pairs of clean animals and a pair of unclean animals into the ark.
It is a progressive revelation. In the first speech, God announces His intention to destroy the earth and orders Noah to build an ark in which Noah is to put a seed-pair of each animal. Subsequent to the completion of the ark (120 years later per Shea), God provides the additional detail that the animals will be divided between clean and unclean, where the unclean animals will consist of a seed-pair for regeneration and the clean animals will consist of seven seed-pairs – for regeneration, for sacrifice (Genesis 8:20) and for food (Genesis 9:3). [22]
The pattern follows Semitic parallelism, where the outer passages deal with the command to build the ark, and the record of entering the ark show less detail, simply using the terminology “each according to its kind” to specify their entrance into the ark. The inside passages deal with the command to enter the ark and Noah’s compliance to the command use the more specific terminology of clean and unclean beasts, establishing chiastic A:B::B:A pairs. [23] Shea sees structural parallelism in the animals and their purposes for sacrifice and food within the flood narrative (Table 4):
Table 4: Flood Chiasmus Revealing Purpose of Clean and Unclean Animals
Primary Genealogical introduction of Noah’s life (5:28-32)
Prologue: Sexual indiscretions of the Sons of God & pronouncement of judgment (6:1-8)
Transitional introduction & secondary genealogical reference (6:9-10)
Promise of covenant (6:11-22)
Clean animals brought into the ark (7:1-5)
Clean animals within the ark (7:6-10)
Noah enters the ark (7:11-16)
The Flood rises (7:17-24)
The Flood crests, the ark rests, God remembers Noah (8:1-5)
The flood abates (8:6-12)
Noah exits the ark (8:13-19)
Noah’s sacrifice (8:20-22)
Noah’s diet of clean animals ((9:1-7)
Establishment of covenant (9:8-17)
Transitional conclusion & secondary genealogical reference (9:18-19)
Epilogue: Sexual indiscretions of sons of Noah and the pronouncement of judgment (9:20-27)
Primary Genealogical conclusion of Noah’s life (9:28-29) [24]
The structure provides the answer to the vexing question of why there appears to be an inconsistency in the text regarding the number of animals to board the ark. It is a progressive revelation evident in the chiasmus. Included in the command to board the ark is the portentous decree that God will destroy the earth in seven days. The God who created the world in seven days now resolves to destroy the earth in seven days, returning it to tohuw wabohuw (Genesis 1:2). [25]
Noah leads the animals into the ark in reverse order of their creation [26] (Gen 7:13-14; cf. 1:20-27) in what appears to be de-creation acted out. The earth that in creation divided and bounded the waters, rising from them (Genesis 1:9), will submerge under the waters after forty days and forty nights of flood.
The waters above the sky and the waters below the earth are loosed from their bounds and the earth disappears below the waters in a divine act of de-creation. The judgment is certain, evident in the words “on that day”, an expression used four times in the Old Testament to mark the day on which a divine command is carried out (Genesis 7:13; 17:23, 26; Exodus 12:41), three times of the paschal feast ((Exodus 12:17, 51; Joshua 5:11), once of the Feast of Weeks (Leviticus 23:21) and thrice of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:28, 29,30). [27]
“That day” is specified as the seventeenth day of the second month of Noah’s six hundredth year. It is a surprisingly specific date, one of a number of dates presented in the flood pericope. Structural parallelism is found in the presentation of these dates. The first occurrence is found in Genesis 7:11 “in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month”, marking the beginning of the flood. This date is counterbalanced with Genesis 8:13 “by the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year”, marking the drying of the earth.
These statements describe how the waters rose and receded from the earth. In between, other dates are provided marking important transitional points in the timing of the flood judgment. Genesis 7:11 is the first passage in Scripture with a specific date, suggesting its importance. The presentation of other dates also suggests importance in the timing of the events of the flood judgment.
The structure divides the events associated with de-creation with the events of the new creation, re-creation. De-creation is emphasized with four references to the destruction of the flood which are counterbalanced with four statements of re-creation – four often associated with God’s earthly creation (Table 5):
Table 5: Narrative Flags of De-creation and Re-creation
| Flags of De-creation | Flags of Re-creation |
| “Every living thing that moved on land perished – birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth and all mankind.” Genesis 7:21 | “and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.” Genesis 8:7 |
| “Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” Genesis 7:22 | “Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark.” Genesis 8:8-9 |
| “Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.” Genesis 7:23a | “He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.” Genesis 8:10-11 |
| “Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” Genesis 7:23b | “He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.” Genesis 8:12 [28] |
The four flags are interwoven into the passage emphasizing the total destruction of all earthly lifeforms from the rising flood waters counterbalanced with four flags indicative of new emergent life from the recession of the flood waters. As the flood waters rose, they bore up the ark which floated on the waters. The same waters that bore the ark of Noah and his family to safety destroyed all living things – everything that had breath. The flood prevailed for 150 days. “But God remembered Noah”, the climax of the passage and turning point demonstrating God’s faithfulness.
Structure: Re-creation
God sent a wind over the earth to dry it, allowing the land to emerge from the sea as the flood receded, an act of re-creation (Genesis 1:9). The wind parallels the wind or breath of the Spirit (רוּחַ ruwach) of Genesis 1:2 that moved upon the face of the waters of the deep, tĕhowm (Genesis 7:11, 8:2; cf. Genesis 1:2), a reference to the pre-creation state of the creation narrative.
God also closed the springs of the deep and the floodgates of heaven, allowing the ark to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat after 150 days. [29] It was the seventeenth day of the seventh month that the ark came to rest. It is deeply significant that the ark came to rest on Ararat, which Strong’s translates “the curse reversed”. Rest had been achieved as the curse was reversed with the cleansing of the earth by the waters of God’s judgment.
The waters continued receding until the first day of the tenth month, where the mountain tops became visible. Forty days later Noah opened a window and sent out a raven which flew back and forth until the water had dried from the earth. Following this, Noah sent a dove, waited seven days, sent the dove again, this time returning with an olive branch.
Noah waited another seven days, sent the dove again and it did not return as the earth had dried out. Scripture records that it was “the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year” that the earth had dried up. That date marked the start of Noah’s seventh century, seven completing a cycle pointing toward the completion of new creation and attainment of sabbatical rest that Noah was prophesied to bring to the earth.
The third divine speech begins with God’s command to Noah to “come out of the ark”. Noah was to disembark together with his family, bring out the animals “so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it”, language recapitulating creation (Genesis 1:22, 28). Noah then built an altar and sacrificed some of the clean animals as a burnt offering. God smelled the sweet savor and offered His assurance to maintain order with the promise never again to “curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood”. Never again would He destroy all living creatures as He had done.
With the emergent new creation, God promised to be faithful to His creation, knowing His creation would be unfaithful to Him. His heart had changed, not man’s. [30] His assurance counterbalances His first divine speech that declared His intention to destroy creation. The first creation that God resolved to destroy is now replaced with a new creation that He resolves to preserve.
But God did not stop there. Through the flood-judgment, He removed the curse on the ground – not the Edenic curse, but with the judgment by water, the ground has been cleansed of the bloodshed committed and those guilty have been judged. [31] The ground, while not returning to its pre-sin Edenic state, now had greater productive potential than before the flood.
Thorns and thistles remain and man must still work the ground. Yet a measure of rest has been accomplished through Noah, anticipating a greater-than-Noah that would ultimately bring complete, unbroken sabbatical rest to mankind, the land and all creation. The rest that Noah achieved anticipates the “already but not yet” rest the church already enjoys, yet not fully in consummation.
Following Noah’s sacrifice, God twice blessed him and his sons (Genesis 9:1, 7) using the familiar “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth”, a recapitulation of the creation blessing of Genesis 1:22, 28. Noah becomes the new ‘adam in the new ‘adamah –the new Adam in the new earth. Creation has been renewed.
New Creation – Yet Man’s Relationship with Animals Has Changed for the Worse
But all is not fully restored. The relationship between the new Adam and the animals has changed:
2 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. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 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. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
The cooperative relationship between man and animals has been broken, the result of excessive violence and bloodshed against God’s creation. “The fear and dread of you” has a military connotation, implying that man’s oversight is no longer beneficent, but abusive. [32] “The fear and dread of you . . . on every creature” parallels Genesis 1:28 “Rule over . . . every living creature”. “Into your hand are they delivered” (AV) implies that now man has power of life and death over these creatures. [33]
Yet animosity will exist between man and animals. Despite the dawn of the new creation, the lasting effects of sin remain with the consequence that the animals are now alienated from man despite his oversight of them. “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you” parallels Genesis 1:29, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food”.
At this point in the narrative, the consistent recapitulation of creation-language from Genesis 1 demonstrates the authorial intent to show Noah as the new Adam, living in a new cleansed earth. Some differences are noteworthy in the new Noahic creation however. God has judged mankind for his evil, providing a higher standing upon which man can worship God independent of location. No longer is there need for sacrifices to be made at a single location, the entrance to Eden. Rather, man is now free to build an altar and offer sacrifices anywhere. It anticipates the change wrought in Christ, in which sacrifices are no longer restricted to one location, the Jerusalem temple mount.
Yet despite this positive outcome, a negative is seen in the fractured relationship between man and the creatures over which he was given superintendence. The blood-violence against these creatures in the prior era has brought a curse-judgment. Man’s failure in overseeing the animals has brought division between he and them, undermining the cooperative relationship. The cleansing of the earth, while allowing increased productivity, did not annul the consequences of man’s prior failures.
The Noahic Covenant
In the new creation, the new Adam is allowed to eat of any creature but with the prohibition that he must not eat meat with blood still in it. Blood gains deep significance in God’s new creation, paralleling the significance of breath in the old creation. The prohibition on eating meat with blood anticipates God’s provision of bloodshed for remission of sin.
A further prohibition is instituted against bloodshed and violence against man, whether by man or animal. Though man may shed the blood of animals but not consume it, he is prohibited from shedding man’s blood. Murder shows the utmost disregard for life. God will hold those accountable who shed blood, [34] emphasized in the thrice written אדרש darash, “will I require”.
“For in the image of God has God made mankind” gives the reason, a restatement of Genesis 1:26-27. Only God can exercise the power of life over man. In no other is the power of life entrusted. Because man is made in the image of God, violence against man is violence against his creator. [35] Man attains a special status above that of the animals. “At the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man” (9:5 AV) echos Cain, the father of bloodshed. [36]
Homicide is bloodshed against one’s brother as all are of Adam’s seed. A restatement to be fruitful and multiply follows, recapitulating Genesis 1:28. Yet now the command to rule over the animals and subdue the earth is absent. Commensurate with God’s new creation is His covenant to preclude another flood judgment, again structured with chiasmus (Table 6):
Table 6: Yahweh’s Commitment to His New Creation Seen in the Noahic Covenant
God’s resolve never again to destroy the earth or humanity – Genesis 8:20-22
Command to be fruitful – Genesis 9:1
Legislation with regard to blood – Genesis 9:2-6
Command to be fruitful – Genesis 9:7
God’s covenant and sign never again to destroy all flesh – Genesis 9:8-17 [37]
God then announced His intent to establish a covenant with everyone carried within the ark. All members of His new creation are assured that He will not bring another flood to destroy the earth. It is an everlasting covenant signified with a rainbow in the sky, comprised of three speeches interwoven with chiasmus (Table 7):
Table 7: Chiasmus of Noahic Covenant Speeches
“Confirm the covenant” – Genesis 9:9-11
“Sign of the covenant” – Genesis 9:12a
Covenant “for farthest generations” – Genesis 9:12b
“My bow” – Genesis 9:13-16
“Eternal covenant” – Genesis 9:16
“Sign of the covenant” – Genesis 9:17
“Confirm” the covenant – Genesis 9:17 [38]
The covenant, promised to Noah in Genesis 6:18 is now extended to include Noah’s sons and the animals aboard the ark in what again appears to be a progressive revelation. Five variants of the covenantal partners are specified (Genesis 9:12, 13, 15, 16, 17) underscoring its importance and transcendence. The sign of the covenant is the rainbow, a reminder of God’s covenantal obligations. “I will remember” echoes to Genesis 8:1. God remembered Noah at the height of the storm. He will remember His covenant to Noah, his sons and all creation. Thus, accompanying the new creation is God’s covenantal promise to protect it and bless it. In return, the covenant lays out God’s expectations from the members of his new creation to properly respect it and its fellow members.
The New Adam and the Fruit of the Vine
Having brought rest from the curse on the ground, like Adam, Noah becomes a man of the soil, planting a garden and cultivating a crop of grapes. Noah also became a viniculturalist, developing wine that would lead him to drunkenness.
In his drunken state, Noah lay “uncovered” in his tent. His youngest son Ham apparently “sees” his father naked and “uncovered”, telling his brothers about it. His brothers Shem and Japheth take a robe, enter Noah’s tent with the robe over their shoulders, walking backward to avoid dishonoring their father in his uncovered state until the robe can cover him. When Noah awoke, realizing what Ham “had done unto him”, he cursed Ham’s youngest son Canaan while blessing the God of Shem and blessing Japheth. Noah’s pronouncements are prophetic, directed to his sons’ descendants.
Before considering the significance of these prophecies, it should be noted that Noah’s drunkenness results in sexual sin of his son Ham, counterbalancing the passage regarding the sexual sins of the sons of God of Genesis 6. Noah’s story ends on this tragic note, followed by a brief genealogical reference to his lifespan and age when he died (Genesis 9:28-29). This final genealogical reference is the epilogue to the story of Noah, again counterbalanced with his genealogical introduction in Genesis 5:28-29. Returning to Noah’s indiscretion, we find this passage also well structured, paralleling the earlier narrative (Table 8):
Table 8: Structure of the Noahic Drunkenness Pericope
Genealogical introduction – Genesis 6:9-10
Setting – Genesis 6:11
Narrative – Genesis 6:12-8:21
Poem – Genesis 8:22
Epilogue – Genesis 9:1-17
Genealogical introduction – Genesis 9:18-19
Setting – Genesis 9:20
Narrative – Genesis 9:20-24
Poem – Genesis 9:25-27
Epilogue – Genesis 9:28-29 [39]
The earlier flood narrative shows God’s faithfulness while the latter reveals the unfaithfulness of Noah/Ham that results from drunkenness. There are obvious parallels to Genesis 3 that are by design. Noah, the new Adam, takes up his occupation caring for a garden (his vineyard) like his predecessor Adam. Noah achieves good success with his toil bringing a fruitful harvest from the restored ground that he has subdued. His success is inferred from the production of wine, often a symbol of joy, celebration and blessing. [40]
God blessed His new creation and Noah is experiencing the blessing and joys of a restored earth. However, later Scripture is replete with warnings against drunkenness, strong drink and excess wine including powerful examples of resultant failures. The warnings included priests who were to refrain from alcohol when ministering before the Lord. [41] While Scripture brings no sinful accusations against Noah, his drunkenness opened the door to sinful behavior in his son Ham despite Noah’s immodesty in being uncovered within his own tent.
Various Positions on the Cursing of Canaan
Ham’s actual sin is disputed among scholars. Uncertainty results from the phrase “when Noah awoke . . . and found out what his youngest son had done to him”. The actual meaning of this phrase is contested, some believing it was the humiliation he brought on his father by telling his brothers. Others believe there is a larger inference in this phrase. Likewise, the cursing of Canaan seems disproportionately harsh for Ham’s sin of voyeurism.
These difficulties have led to four positions among scholars: 1) Ham castrated Noah to assert dominance over the family and usurp his father’s leadership over the family, 2) Ham sodomized his father in an act of dominance, seeking to usurp headship of the family, 3) Ham slept with his mother in an act of dominance to usurp family headship and 4) Ham behaved voyeuristically toward Noah, humiliating him by broadcasting Noah’s nakedness publicly with Noah’s family.
Castration
The view that Ham castrated Noah was proffered by some Rabbis as an alternative to the view of voyeurism and the seeming inadequacy of Canaan’s cursing in light of Ham’s indiscretion. Scriptural support for this view seems lacking however:
. . . one can cite examples from ancient Near Eastern mythology (although none from the Bible) of a son castrating his father as part of an effort to usurp his authority. Thus, Rab’s view suggests a possible motivation for Ham’s crime. It also provides some rationale, albeit complex, for the cursing of Canaan: Noah curses Ham’s fourth son since Ham deprived Noah of a fourth son. What is lacking, however, is any lexical hint in the text of Genesis 9:20-27 that would suggest castration. [42]
While providing a credible explanation for the cursing of Canaan, the text lacks support for so grievous a crime. With talion in force in antiquity, would not one expect its application to Ham (castration) by his brothers?
The second view is that Ham sodomized his father in order to assert his headship over the family through his father’s humiliation. Those holding this view argue that “to see the nakedness of the father” is an idiom for sexual intercourse, noting that Leviticus 20:17 equates seeing nakedness with uncovering nakedness. [43] Uncovering nakedness is a common expression for sexual intercourse (Leviticus 18:6). [44]
Further support can be garnered from Noah’s use of wine, a drink often biblically associated with sexual relations (Genesis 19:30-38; Song of Solomon 8:2; 2 Samuel 11), particularly Genesis 19:30-38, where Lot’s daughters get their father drunk in order to have sexual intercourse with him to continue his line after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This pericope has numerous parallels with the Noah narrative, lending additional support in favor that “seeing Noah’s nakedness” had homosexual overtones.
In addition, גָּלָה galah, the word used to describe Noah’s “uncovered” state is widely used to describe sexual promiscuity (Leviticus 18:6-19, 20:11, 17-21 and Ezekiel 16:36-37; 22:10; 23:10, 18-19, 29) with many of the Leviticus references dealing with incest. [45]
While a strong case can be made for paternal incest based upon the meaning of “seeing the father’s nakedness”, “uncovering the father’s nakedness” and the sexual inferences of wine, the Hebrew expressions for “seeing the father’s nakedness” and “uncovering the father’s nakedness” consistently apply only to heterosexual relationships and never to homosexual relationships. Further, “the nakedness of the father” is equivalent to “the nakedness of your mother” (Leviticus 18:7-8). [46] These arguments favor Ham’s sin as maternal incest. Lastly, if one embraces the paternal incest view, Canaan’s cursing, rather than Ham’s cursing remains a mystery.
Maturnal Incest
These shortcomings have led some to the view that Ham’s sin was maternal incest. The maternal incest view is based in the arguments for paternal incest but refined with the above considerations. Proponents also argue that sexual nuances associated with wine in Scripture are always heterosexual. [47] Likewise, Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20 both describe intercourse with one’s mother as “uncovering the father’s skirt”, favoring maternal over paternal incest. [48]
Given the recapitulation to be fruitful and fill the earth, Noah’s uncovering himself may have been preparatory for sexual relations with his wife in compliance with the command to be fruitful but his drunkenness may have betrayed his efforts, with Noah possibly passing out before completing his duties. Did Ham then advantage the situation? Was Ham opportunistic, motivated to dominate his family and brothers in taking his mother? If so, it may explain why Canaan was cursed as he could have been the fruit of that illicit relationship. Is the twice emphasized reference to Canaan as Ham’s son point to Canaan’s true parentage (not Noah’s but Ham’s son)? [49]
The nuanced possibilities are tantalizing. If Ham did violate his mother, then we have a recapitulation of Genesis 6:1-4 that is consistent with the events of Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). In all cases we have illicit sexual relations that break the familial bounds established by God. [50] In Genesis 6 and Genesis 9, we have the breaking of these familial bounds when men were being fruitful and reproducing to fill the earth and in Genesis 9 and Genesis 19, we have the breaking of familial bounds after a significant supernatural disaster.
In addition, there is some biblical precedence for sons usurping their father’s power by sleeping with their wives or concubines. Reuben slept with Bilhah (Genesis 35:22), Absolom slept with David’s concubines (2 Samuel 16:21-22), Adonijah attempted to acquire Abishag as his wife (1 Kings 2:13-25) and David acquired Saul’s concubines (2 Samuel 12:8). One sees why maternal incest appeals to many scholars.
While the case for maternal incest is credible, it is not compelling. For instance, numerous scholars have seen a tie between Leviticus 18 and the sins of Ham/behaviors of Canaan. Leviticus 18 provides a lengthy list of sexual sins, most of which prohibit sexual relations between family members. The list immediately follows an introductory reference to the detestable practices of Egypt and Canaan. To precede the list of sexual familial sins with an introduction that enjoins the Israelites not to do as the Canaanites did, possibly links back to Genesis 9. Some argue that Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 are an anti-Canaan polemic rooted in the sin of Ham and his illicit son Canaan. [51]
However, the introduction stresses not following the practices of those peoples of the land Israel just left (Egyptians) and the practices of those peoples of the land Israel is about to inhabit (the Canaanites). The defiling of the land seems to be at the root of Leviticus 18 which is borne out in its closing verses:
24 “ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. 29 “ ‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’ ”
Israel is not to commit these detestable practices because it pollutes the land; and Israel, if guilty, will be vomited from the land as the Canaanites will be vomited from the land. The land is at the heart of Leviticus 18 more than the Canaanites. This is the land God promised Abraham, the land God will dwell in, and thus Israel is not to defile His land. Thus, the case that Leviticus 18 and 20 are anti-Canaanite may be overstated.
Also, the argument that Canaan was the fruit of Ham’s incestuous act with his mother requires one to accept that Noah’s curse on Canaan came sometime after “he awoke”. While it is possible that the timeline of the text has been compressed, the narrative seems to imply that Noah realized what Ham had done to him “when he awoke”, and this brought about the curse.
The cursing seems to follow his realization of what Ham had done (raped his mother), not after it became apparent that Noah’s wife was pregnant with Ham’s child. In truth, the curse would have to follow the birth when it would be apparent that the child would be a boy. Admittedly, all this could have been revealed to Noah by God, but that requires we accept the narrative as even more compressed.
There is also the troubling account of Shem and Japheth who both walked backward into Noah’s tent carrying a garment to cover their father, careful not to look upon Noah’s nakedness. Two issues arise from this story. First, it was not just a garment that was carried by the sons but “the” garment, implying that it was Noah’s robe that Ham brought out as proof of his father’s nakedness, and the pious sons returned his robe, covering Noah with it in the hope his nakedness would go undiscovered.
Shem and Japheth were not just covering the father’s physical nakedness, they were covering his indiscretion, something any father would hope his sons would do. If Ham had sexual relations with his mother, why would Ham bring out the father’s robe and not the mother’s? Would that not represent stronger proof? [52] Second, there is a tight correspondence between the indiscretion of Noah being uncovered and the discretion of the sons in covering him, right down to the sons not looking at their father’s nakedness.
That direct correspondence is a common semitic literary tool to counterbalance measures with countermeasures. While it’s possible that the sons’ efforts in covering their father were also nuanced, being viewed with greater significance by the ancients, the obvious reading is Noah was uncovered, Ham’s indiscretion was to tell his brothers publicly – worse to humiliate his father by taking his robe, leaving him to awake naked and thus discovered. His sons’ discretion was to cover their father’s nakedness by returning the robe while still asleep in the hope that Noah’s indiscretion – and Ham’s indiscretion – might go undiscovered by Noah. This seems the more natural reading of the text.
Finally, while the case for maternal incest is credible, one has to explain why this passage is nuanced. The episode of Lot’s paternal incest with his daughters was not nuanced, nor was the narrative of the sons of God intermarrying the daughters of men.
Further, supporters of maternal incest (and paternal incest) fail to address the lack of historical support from other Jewish literary sources. Josephus’ account doesn’t suggest any nuancing. More, it lacks any hint of incest. Similarly, while the book Jubilees provides an expanded account of Noah’s drunkenness, it does not clarify if incest was Ham’s sin. Jubilees follows Genesis 9 quite closely, except to add a small expansion in which Noah exhorts his sons to follow righteousness. One of the exhortations “to cover the shame of their flesh” is suggestive of proper attire, not incest (Jubilees 7:20). [53]
Perhaps most disturbing is the lack of Rabbinical support for incest – whether paternal or maternal. Castration appears to have been the only alternative rabbinical interpretation. [54] Supporters of incest, whether paternal or maternal, can only argue that the elevation of Noah as an important eschatological figure resulted in a nuanced account/nuanced redaction in order to preserve Noah’s elevated status. [55]
Even if true however, one must also explain why only this passage is nuanced, leaving other passages such as Moses’ killing of an Egyptian without similar redaction (especially given Moses was also elevated to semi-divine status in some Judaic traditions). One must explain why this incident of indiscretion warranted nuancing as the text gives no evidence that Noah was in any way at fault.
Voyerism
Given the above considerations, the case for incest is unconvincing. While credible, it is difficult to conclude that Ham’s sin goes beyond the humiliation of publicly announcing his father’s nakedness by taking Noah’s robe outside to his brothers, leaving his father exposed within his tent. If his sin is limited to voyeurism and disrespect, it leaves the question of why Canaan was cursed so harshly. It is possible that Noah applied talion; publicly announcing that Ham’s son Canaan would be a humiliation to his father much like Noah’s son Ham had been a humiliation to him. Ham had committed a disservice to his father and family and Ham’s son would then be in service – in servitude – to his brothers and his family.
The selection of the Ham’s fourth son (versus his firstborn) might have been rooted in behaviors evident in Canaan that mirrored Ham’s indiscretions. However, this can only be conjectured. One other possibility is presented in Jubilees 8:10-10:34, recounting the division of the earth between the sons of Noah, in which Ham is given the land of Libya and the large part of Africa, Japheth northern Europe & north central Asia and Shem is given the land of Asia including Shinar and Palestine.
Each son takes an oath to respect forever each other’s portions under threat of a curse for whoever would break the oath. Canaan later breaks the oath by settling in Palestine, Arpachshad’s portion. Canaan is warned by Ham against settling in Palestine, reminded that his offspring will be accursed. His sedition in illegally settling in the land would result in his children falling by sedition in the land, a judgment of talion (Jubilees 10:29-34).
Jubilees thus offers an alternative explanation for Canaan’s cursing though this explanation requires one to accept a substantially compressed timeline in Genesis. This alternative explanation serves to explain how the land of Canaan got its historical name while also justifying Israel’s accession to the land. Israel was merely taking back the land that was rightfully their portion from Canaan’s descendants who had illegally usurped it.[56] Genesis Apocryphon also supports the account of Jubilees. [57]
One sees from these diverse explanations of Ham’s sin and Canaan’s cursing the historical challenge exegetes have faced. Ham’s actual sin is difficult to determine, and its historical context complicates understanding. Also, modern culture, so heavily influenced by sensuality and visual symbols of physical beauty grapples with ancient near eastern attitudes toward nakedness. [58] Yet it seems even ancient exegetes struggled to understand the passage.
Relevance for Christians Today
Despite its difficulties, much can be gleaned from the flood pericope. First and foremost, Noah’s life recapitulates creation with numerous parallels seen with the creation story of Genesis 1-3. The waters that cover the earth of Noah’s day find their analog in the waters of tĕhowm, the deep, which covered the earth (Genesis 1:2) from which the wind of the Spirit moved, much as God caused a wind to dry the land after the flood (and similarly God brought a wind to divide the waters of the Red Sea).
The olive branch in the mouth of the dove finds its analog in the vegetation that followed the emergence of land in Genesis 1:9-12. As rest followed creation – “and He rested,” וַיִּשְׁבֹּת (Genesis 2:2) – with the completion of the new creation God “smelled” the aroma of rest – ’רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ; (Genesis 8:21; cf. Exodus 20:11) – in which the rest of God on the seventh day of creation is described by the verb רֵיחַ .[59].
However, where Adam was created and placed into a garden environment devoid of sin but proved unrighteous, Noah lived in a world consumed with sin yet remained righteous. Noah lived righteously during a time of unrivaled unrighteousness, keeping his family from the sexual sins perpetrated by the sons of God. His faithfulness delivered him from the judgment that befell creation. That God brought him through the flood in an ark fashioned as a temple bears witness to God’s presence with him through the flood-judgment.
In bringing him through the destruction of the old world and safely delivering him into a new cleansed earth, Noah can be seen as a new Adam in a new adamah, with a new garden that he tills to fruitfulness, producing wine-bearing grapes that lead again to another cycle of Adamic failure that recapitulates the failure of both the sons of God, and Adam as “son of God” (Luke 3:38).
Again, the comparisons are striking with Adam eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and Noah eating of the fruit of the vine. Both find themselves uncovered and in need of a covering for their failure. With Adam, God provides a covering of animal skins. With Noah, his sons provide a covering using his garment. Parallels are even seen in the results of their sin – Adam’s “eyes were opened” (Genesis 2:7/3:7a) and “Noah awoke” (Genesis 9:24). [60]
The Noahic cycle begins and ends in sexual failure emphasizing the importance of sexual fidelity. The consequences of sexual sin on familial relations are also to be noted, likely anticipating the impact of spiritual infidelity (pictured as marriage) to God.
As Adam’s failure had far-reaching consequences to his family that included fratricide, Noah’s failure brings far-reaching consequences to his family. The impact to their descendants is seen in the impact upon the seed: with Adam, the promise of Eve’s seed contending with the seed of the serpent, with Noah, the seed of Ham (Canaan) subject to, and “contending” with the seed of Shem and Japheth.
Note the parallels on “the seed” of each: Adam had three sons, one unrighteous and two righteous and Noah had three sons, one unrighteous and two righteous. In both cases the sin of the father is followed by a blessing/cursing and subsequent division of contending seed – with Adam, Cain’s seed divided from Abel’s and Seth’s – with Noah, Canaan’s seed divided from Shem’s and Japheth’s. Most importantly, despite Noah’s righteousness, his life ends in failure, recapitulating the story of Adam.
Thus, Noah in many ways retells the story of Adam. Despite God’s complete destruction and recreation of his earthly creation, the cycle of man’s failure repeats. It is only God’s heart that has changed. Man’s heart that was always set on evil, continues to propagate evil. The conflict introduced between the righteous and unrighteous seed pre-flood is recapitulated post-flood with one important difference. Noah’s righteousness not only preserved his family and “healed” the cursed ground but also changed God’s heart.
Noah’s righteousness increased the ground’s fruitful potential while his subsequent sacrifice brought a change in God’s attitude toward men that resulted in the establishment of covenant. Fundamentally, Noah’s righteousness established relations. These relations were established through a newly introduced tool, the covenant. Not only is God seen to be faithful to regenerate His creation, His judgments raise creation to a higher standing, bringing covenant relations.
From this outline can be seen the faint outline of a greater than Noah who would also change God’s heart, be faithful in all things, bring rest, restoration, restore fruitfulness, eliminate the curse of death and restore perpetual relations. As Adam had the hope of the Protevangelium – one from the seed of Eve who would restore all things, Noah is typical of the one who was to come to restore all things to the pre-sin state.
Implications to Noah & the Judgment by Water
The Noahic flood pericope provides a broad template of ethical lessons regarding righteousness, unrighteousness, faithfulness, failure and new beginnings. That the entire flood narrative so strongly recapitulates creation is deeply significant. Also significant is the key actor Noah, who is envisioned as a new Adam.
The Noah pericope became deeply significant to Jewish and Christian audiences as a model of an end-time judgment that will purge the earth of all wickedness, consummated in a new Edenic creation. It is this element of the Noahic pericope that will be examined next.
Noah as Prototype of Christ
Noah stands out as a righteous man living in an unrighteous world. In a world filled with wickedness, a world God was determined to destroy, “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (6:8). He found favor because he “was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God” (vs 9).
That he and his family were the only ones saved from the flood, provides powerful ethical incentives for righteous living in an unrighteous and wicked world. Yet Noah’s blameless standing also draws a natural comparison with another adamic figure, Jesus Christ. Christ was similarly righteous and blameless before God and like Noah, He lived in a world of total wickedness evident in the behavior of the religious leadership of Israel. Noah was also seen faithful in building the ark, having done “everything just as God commanded him” (vs 22).
Noah, whose name meant “rest”, was prophesied to bring rest from the curse on the ground. As Noah did everything the Lord commanded him, so Christ was faithful in all things, obedient to the Father, even unto death (Hebrews 2:17; 3:2, 6; Revelation 1:5). Noah’s righteousness moved God to protect and preserve his family as a remnant through the flood judgment.
Likewise, Christ, because of His faithfulness, will bring a remnant of God’s people through the coming judgment by fire. In following God’s commands, Noah became a new Adam inaugurating a new creation, the present heaven and earth. He was entrusted with the seed of all lifeforms within the ark.
His faithfulness models that of Christ, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who has inaugurated a new creation, faithful to preserve all who have the new life of Christ within them. All things have been entrusted to Christ. As Noah and his family became the heir to a new earth cleansed from sin by water, those in Christ are heirs to a new heaven and new earth cleansed from greater sins by fire.
Through Christ’s death, the curse of sin is removed and creation is transformed much as Noah’s faithfulness brought rest from the curse upon the ground. Like Noah, Christ has brought rest to His people already (Matthew 11:28). At the consummation of the age, God’s eternal Sabbatical rest will have been accomplished in Christ.
Though both Adam and Noah failed, having their nakedness shamefully exposed and needing a covering for their failures, Jesus provides a covering for his people that adorns them as a virgin bride in jewels and costly array (Revelation 21:9-14). Christ’s covering however, comes without failure as He was in all ways obedient to God’s requirements. Thus, His people can res,t assured that His covering is sufficient to cover all our failures and secure us to Himself.
Importantly, Noah’s sacrifice was acceptable to God, a sweet savor due to his righteousness. The pleasing aroma then caused God to say 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” (8:21). Noah’s sacrifice pleased God, changing His perspective toward mankind, intimating that Noah’s sacrifice was propitiatory, anticipating the propitiatory work of a greater than Noah, Christ.
Ancients seemed to understand the need to change God’s view of His creation. It is widely intimated throughout the Old Testament (Exodus 32:11-14; Numbers 32:8-15; Deuteronomy 6:14-15; 2 Kings 23:26; Psalm 78:38; Isaiah 30:27-29; 64:5-12; Jeremiah 31:2, 28-29; Daniel 9:16-19; Micah 7:18-19). Also intimated is God’s intention to change His view of Israel (Isaiah 43:25; 44:22; 49:8; 51:21-23; 54:4-10; 57:16-19; 60:10, 15; Ezekiel 16:63). It seems a veiled reference to the propitiatory work of the servant of the Lord (note particularly Isaiah 54:9 in light of the work of the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53).
The New Testament affirms the work of Christ in changing God’s heart toward those in Christ (John 3:36; Romans 5:9-10; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:21-22). Christ’s sacrifice was also elevated over Noah’s in that His work changed the hearts of His people (Jeremiah 31:33-34; 32:37-40 Ezekiel 37:24-26) in contrast to Noah’s day, in which God recognized that “every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:21). The details of the Noahic narrative, together with the escalations seen in the parallels in Christ, show the central importance of Noah. He is the central figure in the drama of good versus evil that prefigures the eschatological drama to come.
The Ark as Type of Christ as God’s Temple
The ark was a three-storied structure modeled after God’s cosmic temple. Housing the seed of all life-forms within it, it was the cosmos in miniature, a symbolic temple. As a temple, it was God’s dwelling place, making it the only safe place throughout the flood judgment.
Noah, his family and all creation were safe within the House of God, the only place of refuge and safety throughout the de-creating judgment of the flood. Its fulfillment is seen in Christ who declared Himself to be God’s temple (Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58; John 2:19), God’s one and only dwelling place, foreshadowing the only place of refuge through the judgment by fire. Those in Christ can expect safe passage through the de-creating judgments that destroy the present heaven and earth, into the consummated new heaven and new earth.
Similarly, as eight were preserved from the flood judgment, one would expect that a remnant from the current creation will be preserved and transformed into the new creation. Safe passage seems in view in Luke 6:46-49, in which following the commands of Christ is likened to building a house on a firm foundation that will withstand the coming flood, a novel reinterpretation of the ark within the flood judgment that brings the faithful through to the new creation.
There is a parallel temple picture seen in the judgment that falls upon mankind. The story of man begins with Adam located in a garden paradise, a picture of the Holy of Holies. After his fall, he is banished to the dry wilderness outside the garden, emblematic of the Holy Place where all mankind must dwell going forward. With the flood judgment, mankind is again banished – this time from God’s holy place, the dry wilderness, to the sea for destruction – the sea emblematic of the outer court, the deep. Each stage of man’s banishment also reveals the pattern of God’s cleansing of his cosmic temple from sin.
A parallel is seen in Revelation. The cleansing of the Most Holy-Place is seen in Revelation 12 with Satan being thrown down to the earth from heaven, a picture of the cleansing of God’s Most-Holy-Place in the heavens. The cleansing of the Holy-Place is seen as Satan’s banishment from the earth to the abyss in Revelation 20, with Satan pushed into the outer court of God’s cosmic temple. Satan’s destruction following the millennial reign signals the completion of the cleansing of God’s cosmic temple of all evil when hell itself is destroyed.
While God is cleansing his cosmic temple of sin through the destruction of the wicked, He simultaneously preserved righteous Noah and his family through the flood. The preservation is likened to the cleansing and preserving power of baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:2, which recapitulates the “baptism” of the Israelites at the Red Sea).
As Noah’s family was baptized and preserved through the flood, so those baptized in Christ are preserved through the final tribulation by fire. 1 Peter thus sees the baptism in Christ as the antitype to God’s preserving power of Noah’s family seen in the ark. The sign of Christ’s coming signals life to those in Christ but death to those rejecting Christ.
In the Noahic judgment upon man, God announced that He would destroy the earth with a flood in seven days (Genesis 7:10). In the antitype, we see God’s sovereign plan to destroy the present heaven and earth in seven “days” while simultaneously creating a new heaven and new earth in seven “days”.[61] These seven days mark the creation of the new heaven and new earth, consummated in the Feast of Tabernacles, an event marking the completion of God’s eschatological plan, ushering in an eternal Sabbath of true rest. [62]
Thus, the flood narrative reveals both the judgment upon man’s sin and the cosmic actions taken by God to cleanse his holy temple with a possible veiled reference to the overall weeklong timing of His plan. Christ thus becomes an ark of refuge and safety to His people through the fiery judgment to come. He is the temple of God, the place of God’s presence, the sanctuary of His people and their new “eschatological-ark”. As temple and tabernacle for His people, He becomes the new creation (the new heaven and new earth), again represented symbolically as a temple. At the fulfillment of God’s eschatological plan, His glory fills all creation as all creation becomes His temple.
The Noahic Flood Typical of an Apocalyptic Eschatological Flood
John makes an eschatological prediction of an end-time flood in Revelation 12:
And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. Revelation 12:15-16 (AV)
The flood that proceeds from the mouth of the serpent/dragon had the purpose to destroy the woman by carrying her away in the flood. [63] However, in a recapitulation of the crossing of the Red Sea, the earth is seen “swallowing” the river/flood to protect the woman (Exodus 14:21-22). Having failed to overtake and destroy the woman, the dragon then wages war against her offspring – “those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus” (Revelation 12:17).
The flood that proceeds from the mouth of the dragon can be contrasted against Christ, who is envisioned by John with a sword proceeding from His mouth (1:16; 2:16; 19:15, 21). It affirms that the warfare is not conventional military warfare, but a war of testimony, with the testimony of Christ faithful and true, and the testimony of the dragon false. [64] The war the dragon wages, is a war of false versus true testimony. The dragon thus seeks to corrupt spiritually those of God’s people envisioned on an exodus from the old-world order to God’s new creation. The dragon then, attempts to put them to death through a flood of false teachings, false prophecy and false testimony. It is an attempt on the part of the dragon to destroy God’s emergent new community and creation.
In an apparent act of talion, and in keeping with Noahic times, God’s response to the dragon’s attempts to corrupt His people, is to destroy the dragon and his forces with a new eschatological flood. It is not a flood of water, but a spiritual flood involving angelic ranks and captured spirits of the Nephilim. The flood could conceivably be understood in military terms (Revelation 12:7-9), with the defeat of Satan’s forces – their being thrown down to earth, signaling the opening of the windows of heaven, as in Noah’s day. It is not a flood of defeated fallen angels. Rather, it is the descent of Michael’s forces from heaven to earth pursuing Satan’s forces who have been routed and are now cosmically chased. While John does not explicitly state that Michael’s forces followed Satan’s descent, it would logically follow the defeat and retreat of Satan’s forces.
Revelation 9 appears to be a “companion” passage, that speaks of the opening of the Abyss, from which the defeated, captured Nephilim are envisioned as conscripted into God’s army, tormenting all His enemies. The release of the Nephilim could thus be conceivably understood as the opening of the fountains of the deep, in tandem with the opening of the windows of heaven, again after the Noahic model.
This view is enhanced by the duration of the Nephilim’s torment, which is five months or 150 days. It seems likely John is signaling that the attack of the Nephilim will prevail over God’s enemies for the same length that the Noahic flood waters prevailed over the earth. Yet contrary to the Noahic flood, which had the purpose to destroy all flesh, the new Johannine flood has the purpose to defeat the spiritual forces in opposition to Christ, while also tormenting those who are not in Christ.
Noteworthy, those tormented by the Nephilim seek death but do not find it in contrast to the first flood which brought death. It would seem that the flood is designed to destroy the spiritual forces of the dragon – or at least to limit the effectiveness of their attack during the war that ultimately brings their defeat.
What is seen in the Johannine reinterpretation of the Noahic flood, is a judgment brought in response to unprecedented evil that threatened to destroy God’s new creation. As the righteous seed had been threatened by demonic teaching, blood-violence and corruption of all flesh in the Noahic times, John provides a recapitulation in a new threat to the righteous seed in Christ from a flood of demonic teaching (Revelation 12:15), blood-violence, notably against His community (11:7; 13:10) and a corruption of all flesh spiritually through idolatry (13:4-8, 12-15; 18:2-3).
In the Johannine eschatological flood (Figure 2), a heightening over the Noahic flood is in evidence in all three threats. One can take heart in God’s miraculous provision of safety afforded His people Israel, envisioned as a new eschatological exodus from the nations in which God provides “a new bridge” of earth to allow His exodus-community escape from the flood of false testimony wrought against them by the dragon.
Yet for the righteous followers of Christ, there appears no such escape. Rather, the covenant-community in Christ should expect to be the target of an unprecedented assault by the forces of the dragon focused in blood-violence/spiritual corruption through the choice offered by the beast of a life of idolatrous worship of the beast or martyrdom.
It would seem that in the prior age, ethnic Israel was the focus of the dragon’s persecutions and deceptions. In the new eschatological age, it would seem the Gentile community becomes the focus of the dragon’s persecutions and deceptions. Yet we have been assured that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us (Matthew 16:18). John’s message thus seems focused upon the followers of Christ, envisioning this community as a community of martyrs who, like their Lord, overcome through their testimony in martyrdom (Revelation 14:1-5), seen triumphantly on Mount Zion.
The End Shall Come Like a Flood
One of the more unexpected Scriptures is Daniel 9:26 which predicts that the Messiah will be put to death and have nothing, Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed by “the people of the ruler who will come”, and the end (of the city and sanctuary) will come like a flood. That God’s traditional city and His traditional home would be destroyed like a flood, with war to continue until the end with desolations decreed, is unexpected.
Daniel, realizing that the seventy years of captivity prophesied by Jeremiah were coming to an end, interceded for his people, in the hope to prepare them for what Daniel believed would be restoration for the people, the temple and the city. His hope was a return of the people from Babylon, followed by rebuilding the temple and city. In short, Daniel was anticipating Israel’s golden age.
It would seem the answer he got, did not meet his expectations. First, Daniel is told that the seventy years in captivity to Babylon will not bring Israel’s golden era. Rather, seventy sevens are first appointed, and it is not until after the sixty-nineth “seven” that the Anointed One (the Messiah) will come. Worse, He will be put to death and have nothing, pointing toward a full realization of His kingdom only after the seventieth seven. Oddly, Daniel is told that the temple and city will be rebuilt (vs 25), only to be destroyed again like a flood, with continual war and desolations to the end.
What is striking is how Jerusalem’s destruction will come like a flood. One has to ask why Jerusalem’s destruction is described as a flood. Often God’s judgment on the wicked is described as a flood (Psalm 90:5; Isaiah 24:18-20; 28:2 Amos 8:8; 9:5) while some scriptures describe the conquering armies as an overflowing flood (Isaiah 59:19; Jeremiah 46:7-8; 47:2; Daniel 9:26; 10:11, 22; Nahum 1:8). The Noahic flood judgment not only swept away the wicked but preserved the righteous, pictured in the ark, providing an additional model of God’s preserving power for the righteous, presented as a remnant, yet portrayed as a new creation.
Is this a judgment upon God’s people given the invasion of a foreign army? Should one expect a remnant of righteous after the model of the Noahic flood? And what of war to the end? Is this the end of the temple and city, or is it the end of the seventy “sevens”? And if the end of the seventy “sevens”, then what will be the temple during the subsequent golden era of Israel to follow?
These are difficult questions. A contrast with Isaiah 66 may offer some insights. Isaiah 66:12 declares “I will extend peace to her [Jerusalem] like a river and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream”, notably different language for Jerusalem than that employed by Daniel! The background of Isaiah 65-66 speaks of the new heaven and new earth (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22) in which there will be a new Jerusalem, “for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy” (65:18), and a new temple, “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?” (66:1-2).
Yet amidst this great promise of a new creation with a new temple and new city, is the stark warning of judgment upon Jerusalem’s evildoers (65:1-8, 11-15; 66:3-4, 14b-17, 24). The warnings portend a purging of all of Israel’s rebels from her midst, leaving a faithful remnant to share in a new Jerusalem with her new temple. Note the plain language of Isaiah 66:5, “hear the word of the Lord, you who tremble at his word: ‘Your own people who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, “Let the Lord be glorified, that we may see your joy!” Yet they will be put to shame.’”
Jerusalem is full of people who hate God’s righteous elect and they must be judged. How? Isaiah 66:6 answers: “Hear that uproar from the city, hear that noise from the temple! It is the sound of the Lord repaying his enemies all they deserve.” Jerusalem and her temple will be destroyed in judgment, [65] yet replaced by a new and better city and temple, one unlike the prior, affirmed in the descriptions, “I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me”, “the former things will not be remembered” “the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more”, “never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years”, “the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child”, “they will not labor in vain”, “the wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox”, “where is the house”, “where will my resting place be”, “has not my hand made all”, “before she goes into labor, she gives birth”, “who has ever heard of such things”, “who has ever seen things like this”, “can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment”, “I will gather the people of all nations and languages”, “they will bring all your people . . . as an offering” and “I will select some of them also to be my priests and Levites”.
Isaiah signals the new creation brings the long-awaited ingathering of the diaspora, while hinting at a new priesthood to accompany the new Jerusalem and the new temple. In light of the monumental changes, it should be no surprise that Jerusalem-that-is-below and her temple would be destroyed. Jerusalem-that-is-below has become a symbol of Israel’s rebellion and failure to comply with her covenantal obligations.
As the old covenant was unsalvageable, so also the old city and its old temple. As Jerusalem-that-is-below had become a symbol of blood-violence, she would be destroyed with wars (bloodshed) to continue to the end. [66] The fulfillment is seen in the Olivet discourse, most notably the Lukan version, which predicts “everyone will hate you because of me” (Luke 21:17; cf. Isaiah 66:5), “when you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20; cf. Isaiah 66:6), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city” (Luke 21:21; cf. Isaiah 66:19) and “nation will rise against nation” (Luke 21:10; cf. Daniel 9:26).
Note particularly “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains”, an apparent recapitulation of Sodom’s judgment, portending Jerusalem’s complete destruction with the exception of a fleeing remnant after the model of Lot.
The prophets had long ago likened Jerusalem to Sodom (Amos 4:10-11; Ezekiel 16:23). Now however, note the parallel with Sodom’s abuse of the angelic guests God sent to the city. Like Sodom, Jerusalem mistreated One greater than the angels, scourging Him and putting Him violently to death by crucifixion, an abuse far worse than the abuse planned by Sodom’s residents of the angels.
Such abuse of God’s Messiah required a judgment upon Jerusalem worse than Sodom, seen first in Jerusalem’s total destruction by Titus, followed by spiritual desolation of the city and temple to follow until the end. Jerusalem’s rejection of her Messiah brought a rejection of Jerusalem by Him. She no longer carries relevance to God’s salvific plan.
Isaiah’s testimony strengthens the prior claim that Jerusalem-that-is-below and her stone temple would be a place of continuing desolation until the end. No more marked contrast exists than “I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream” (Isaiah 66:12) and “the end will come like a flood: war will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed” (Daniel 9:26).
The old is destroyed in a flood, the new enriched with a flood (Figure 3). The old ends in war, the new will have peace extended to her. This outcome is consistent with the Noahic flood, which brought judgment upon all wickedness, while preserving and bringing new life (note a new creation proclaimed by Isaiah!). Similarly, the picture of the woman in birth pains reveals both outcomes, the pain of God’s judgment against those rebellious in the community of God, yet for the faithful comes new life, true eternal life with its riches of peace.
Concluding Reflections
The relevance of the Noahic flood judgment to our eschatological age proves of crucial value. Later authors were able to apply the principles of the Noahic flood judgment to their times and their audience, to teach timeless ethical and eschatological lessons of readiness, holiness and blessedness for the righteous while warning of severe judgment upon the unrighteous.
A key outcome of the Noahic flood is new creation. Once understood, it is no surprise end-time judgments were envisioned as floods. Each flood recapitulation anticipates new creation. It is a central message to those living between Christ’s appearings. A severe judgment is coming upon the ungodly, but it is followed by a new creation devoid of sin.
It means the rebellious of the community will be purged and the elect will be purified, perfected in Christ. It is an essential message of encouragement to a community of people who are about to face persecution and widespread martyrdom. As the waters of death didn’t overwhelm Noah and his family who were safely within God’s ark, so also for the eschatological community who are safely within the ark of Christ. They are safe within God’s new eschatological temple. Physical death cannot separate them from the new creation to follow in Christ. They have been granted eternal spiritual life. Our security is in Christ, and Christ alone.
The Noahic flood was also employed by John to assist believers in realizing the power of Christ’s enemy, who will seek to destroy God’s community-in-exile through a flood of false teachings and false prophecies. Yet John reveals that this effort is doomed to fail, forcing the devil to unleash a last-ditch effort to destroy God’s elect through severe persecution and death.
For those of the martyr-community, it may seem hopeless, yet John assures his readers that this effort will also fail. God is not on the sidelines. There is a spiritual battle being waged on earth and God has the forces of the enemy hemmed in. There is nowhere for them to retreat. In talion God will unleash a flood of angelic and spiritual powers from above and below. No one need worry. Christ has already triumphed over Satan. His victory is assured and His people cannot be deceived. They will also triumph by His blood and the word of their testimony.
Finally, there is no reason to concern oneself with Jerusalem-that-is-below or her temple. God has destroyed her with an overflowing flood and created Jerusalem anew, to be a joy to him. It is a city Paul calls Jerusalem-that-is-above (Galatians 4:26). The new Jerusalem is the community of the redeemed, safe with Christ. Her residents will be comprised of obedient members of the exodus-community, together with the community of the martyred. Though facing the prospect of the most intense spiritual battle in history, there is the promise for them of peace flowing like a river and the wealth of nations streaming to them as a result of their faithful testimony. For them, war and desolations will be brief with peace to follow for eternity. What a difference to those of the community of the old-world order.
[1] Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 2, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 32
[2] See Genesis 7:4, 12, 17; Numbers 14:34; Deuteronomy 25:3; Judges 13:1; 1 Samuel 17:16; 1 Kings 19:8; Ezekiel 29:11-13; Jonah 3:4; Matthew 4:2; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:2. Note also Bullinger, E. W., Number in Scripture, Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications, 1981, p. 266-267. It can be argued that Numbers 14:34 is a direct punishment for disobedience, one year for each day the spies were in Canaan, and that the forty years also represents one generation. Thus, it could be argued that the forty years were purposed to prevent the present disobedient generation from entering the land of rest. Nevertheless, the references to Israel’s wanderings suggest judgment. Judges 3:11 records that the land had rest for forty years following the revival of Othniel. In this instance there is not a clear reference to trial or testing (see also Judges 5:31; 8:28) though Bullinger argues it to be probationary. Also, Moses’ life was divided into three forty-year segments (Acts 7:23, 30, 36), and Saul (Acts 13:21), David (1 Chronicles 29:27), Solomon (1 Kings 11:42; 2 Chronicles 9:30) Joash (2 Chronicles 24:1) and Jehoash (2 Kings 12:1) each reigned forty years. None of these passages (save Israel’s wanderings and perhaps Moses’ wanderings in Midian) suggests trial, testing or chastisement though again Bullinger argues these to be probationary.
[3] Deuteronomy 9:7-10:11 appears to include a third “forty” day period in which Moses prostrated himself before the Lord, interceding for Israel after their sin (Deuteronomy 9:18, 25). This forty-day period preceded the second “forty day and forty night” interval Moses spent on Sinai (Deuteronomy 10:10), per the Jewish targum. The Jewish tradition teaches that the second period of forty days for reconciliation with God terminated on the Day of Atonement. Rosenbaum, M. and Silbermann, A., Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, New York, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1932, p. 51.
[4] If a similar pattern exists in the new covenant of Christ, it is not obvious. Noteworthy are the two occurrences of forty days: forty days of fasting leading up to Christ’s temptation (Matthew 4:2) – a probative test He would have to pass in order to inaugurate a new creation – and the forty days He spent with His disciples following His resurrection (Acts 1:3) which serve as proof of His resurrection and the inauguration of the new heaven and new earth. There may be a faint pattern of the two occurrences of forty from the flood narrative (forty days of de-creation in the waters building followed by forty days of the waters receding in recreation) however it is not decisive as the “forties” associated with Christ’s life are divided between two authors making it difficult to determine if deliberate. Note also that Moses was forty when he visited his people and he spent forty years with them in the wilderness after the new creation of Israel. Again, a faint outline appears to be present with his first forty years spent before Israel’s creation and forty spent after their creation.
[5] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 157
[6] http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_noach.html or http://www.rashiyomi.com/gn07-20a.htm
[7] http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_noach.html
[8] Mitchell, T.C., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 1, Flood, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980,p. 511
[9] There seems to be some disagreement about whether the lunar month or solar calendar was used prior to the Exodus among the Israelites – the solar calendar possibly adopted while in Egypt. Under this chronology, each of the 150 day periods would consist of five 30 day months.
[10] http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html#anchorFloodChronology
[11] http://www.bibleinsight.com/floodp1.html – This timeline would require God to inform Noah at the close of the Sabbath day at evening to have the flood commence one week later in the evening following the Sabbath.
[12] Najm S. & Guillaume, Ph., Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative, The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, ISSN 1203-1542, Volume 5: Article 1, 2004, available @ www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_31.pdf
[13] http://members.tripod.com/~Berean_Bible_Church/books/thefloodrevisited.pdf
[14] Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1 & 2, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 44-45
[15] Finegan, Jack, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, Revised Edition, Peabody MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1998, p. 15-16
[16] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 157-158
[17] Shea, William H., The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications, Origins, 1979, available @ https://www.grisda.org/origins/06008.htm
[18] Strong’s concordance H5146 available http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5146&t=KJV
[19] Note the parallel with Christ, fashioned with a body of flesh from the old world, yet also the One who created the new creation with the ironic outcome that He, in resurrection, became part of the new creation, the first-fruits that bear promise to “shuttle” those in Christ to a new resurrected body into the new creation. The parallel is striking.
[20] This is the first mention of בְּרִית bĕriyth (covenant) used in Scripture. While Yahweh’s covenantal assurance occurs only once in the front end of the passage (Genesis 6:9), it is mentioned seven times following the flood (Genesis 9:9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17) emphasizing its finality throughout the cycle of the new creation. Yahweh commits to establish קוּם quwm, his covenant only once in front end of the passage (Genesis 6:18), its establishment is mentioned three times following the flood (Genesis 9:9, 11, 17), emphasizing its certainty and completion.
[21] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 149
[22] Shea, William H., The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications, Origins, 1979, available @ https://www.grisda.org/origins/06008.htm. Shea also notes that in Yahweh’s initial pronouncement, He mentioned only His intention to destroy the earth. Subsequently with the command to enter the ark, He also revealed additional progressive details of His intention to destroy the earth in 7 days by a flood that would last 40 days and 40 nights. These additional details support his argument that God’s revelation to Noah is progressive and thus, no contradiction exists. He notes the same progressive approach with Jeremiah contrasting the early chapters hinting of Babylon’s destruction with chapters 30-33 providing a more detailed progressive revelation.
[23] Shea, William H., The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications, Origins, 1979, available @ https://www.grisda.org/origins/06008.htm. Shea argues a similar parallelism in the use of creeping things, claiming that creeping things are used in the passages not specifying clean and unclean animals (the first and fourth passages but not the second and third). However, he appears to have missed the presence of creeping things from Genesis 7:8-9, nullifying his argument.
[24] Shea, William H., The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications, Origins, 1979, available @ https://www.grisda.org/origins/06008.htm.
[25] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 122
[26] Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 55
[27] Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, Minneapolis MN, Augsburg Publishing House, 1984, p. 436-437. Numerous scholars have concluded that the flood lasted 1 year, implying that the expression “on that day” would mark both the day of Yahweh’s judgment and the day of festive rejoicing of the new emergent creation. It is ironic that it would mark a day of condemnation yet also a day of salvation. Given its other references to the paschal feast, the expression seems to anticipate the salvation of Christ as the Lamb of God.
[28] Shea, William H., The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications, Origins, 1979, available @ www.grisda.org/origins/06008.htm.
[29] The source of the waters below is tĕhowm, the deep, the watery abyss, the lowest level of the tripartite creation temple. The source of the waters above is the cosmic ocean that resided above raqiya`, the firmament, the vault of heaven. It was through the windows of heaven that these waters flowed and through which rain fell. Gunkel believed this heavenly sea was what John referred to as a “sea of glass” in Revelation 4:6. Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, Minneapolis MN, Augsburg Publishing House, 1984, p. 117
[30] It would seem that God’s heart changed as a result of Noah’s righteousness. Noah’s righteousness thus prefigures the righteousness of Christ who would change God’s heart toward men during our age.
[31] The close relationship between man and the ground, between אָדָם ‘adam and אֲדָמָה ‘adamah anticipates why bloodshed pollutes the ground, and why bloodshed requires a cleansing of the ground, for ‘adam was fashioned from the ‘adamah. Violence against man is violence against the ground, the dwelling place of man. Given that Yahweh’s eschatological purpose is to tabernacle with man, it implies Yahweh’s dwelling place is the ground/earth. Thus, the ground cannot be polluted if Yahweh is to dwell there.
[32] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 192
[33] Ibid, p. 192
[34] The importance is emphasized in talion with chiasmus revealing a one-for-one correspondence between perpetration – shed, blood, man – and punishment – man, blood, shed – in reverse order. There is certainty of punishment in proportion and measure with the crime. Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 193
[35] Adam’s/mankind’s identity was founded in the image of God, now extended as the basis for Noah’s (and mankind’s) protection. The identity of the animals came when brought to Adam and named. With the flood, the animals are brought to Noah for protection. These parallels demonstrate the author’s intense care to communicate his new-creation message.
[36] This is the first occurrence of brother following Genesis 4, emphasizing the heinousness of bloodshed against man. Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 193
[37] Waltke, Bruce K., Genesis, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2001, p. 127
[38] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 194
[39] Waltke, Bruce K., Genesis, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2001, p. 127
[40] See Genesis 14:18; 27:25-28; 49:11-12; Deuteronomy 7:13; 11: 14; 33:28; Judges 9:13; Esther :1:10; Job 1:13; Psalm 4:7; 104:15; Proverbs 3:10; Ecclesiastes 9:7; 10:19; Isaiah 16:10; 22:13; 27:2; 55:1; 65:8; Jeremiah 31:12; Hosea 2:8; 14:7; 2:19, 24; 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Zechariah 9:17; 10;7; John 2:1-12.
[41] Genesis 19:32-35; Proverbs 20:1; 21:17; 23:30-31; 31:4-6; Isaiah 5:11-12, 22; 28:7; 56:12; Hosea 4:11; Habakkuk 2:5; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Timothy 3:3,8; Titus 1:7; 2:3; 1 Peter 4:3 provide warnings regarding strong drink as Leviticus 10:9; Ezekiel 44:21require that priests refrain from alcohol when ministering before the Lord.
[42] Bergsma, John Sietze and Hahn, Scott Walker, Noah’s Nakedness and Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27), Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005), available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Bergsma-Noahs_Nakedness_And_Curse_On_Canaan.pdf, p. 3
[43] Ibid, p. 3
[44] The NIV translation is “No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.” The same idiom is used in Ezekiel 16:36-37; 22:10, 18, 29 lending intertextual support while also hinting that Ham’s sin may have gone beyond voyeurism. Bergsma, John Sietze and Hahn, Scott Walker, Noah’s Nakedness and Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27), Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005), available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Bergsma-Noahs_Nakedness_And_Curse_On_Canaan.pdf, p. 3
[45] Bergsma, John Sietze and Hahn, Scott Walker, Noah’s Nakedness and Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27), Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005), available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Bergsma-Noahs_Nakedness_And_Curse_On_Canaan.pdf, p. 4
[46] Ibid, p. 7 See also Leviticus 18:14, 16; 20:11, 13, 21 where the woman’s nakedness is considered to be the nakedness of her husband.
[47] Ibid
[48] Ibid
[49] The narrative of Noah’s drunkenness is preceded by a genealogical reference to Noah and his three sons in which Ham is specifically called the father of Canaan, possibly directing attention to maternal incest. It is not surprising that the passage is preceded by a genealogical introduction. Note that Yahweh prohibits bloodshed of men (Genesis 9:5-6) and follows immediately with a blessing to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 9:7) in contrast to bloodshed. Man is to bring life, not death. Then follows the establishment of the covenant which begins with “Then God said to Noah and his sons with him” (Genesis 9:8) and ends with “The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth” (Genesis 9:18-19), with Noah and his sons again mentioned, chiastically counterbalancing the introduction: A: be fruitful and fill the earth –B: Noah and his sons named as receptors of the covenant – B’: Noah and his sons recapitulated as having come out of the ark – A’: fruitfulness achieved in Noah and sons repopulating the earth. The parenthetical mention of Canaan as Ham’s son in advance of Noah’s drunkenness is surprising, providing a bridge to that event while also hinting that Canaan has significance to the story. To preface the drunkenness narrative with the introduction of Canaan as Ham’s son could connote maternal incest is at the heart of the events to take place.
[50] If correct, then in Genesis 6 the bounds between human and angel were crossed; in Genesis 9 between mother and son and in Genesis 19 between father and daughters. Further, the sin of Genesis 6 and Genesis 9 occur when men were faithful to the blessing to be fruitful, making crossing this familial boundary unnecessary. Though ordinarily angels are not thought to be of the same family, that Genesis 1 says “Let us make mankind in our image . . .” suggests that man and the elohim – the angels – are of similar stock. If our exegesis is true, the mere fact that sexual relations between men and angels led to offspring suggests we are generally of the same family.
[51] Bergsma, John Sietze and Hahn, Scott Walker, Noah’s Nakedness and Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:20-27), Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005), available @ http://www.godawa.com/chronicles_of_the_nephilim/Articles_By_Others/Bergsma-Noahs_Nakedness_And_Curse_On_Canaan.pdf, p. 9
[52] The father’s robe might serve as adequate proof given that the mother was figuratively “covered” by the father’s skirt. Nevertheless, emerging with his mother’s robe would seem strong proof Ham had raped his mother.
[53] Interestingly, Jubilees 16:8 states “And he [Lot] and his daughters committed sin upon the earth, such as had not been on the earth since the days of Adam till his time; for the man lay with his daughters”. Does this editorial comment suggest that Lot’s sexual encounter with his daughters was the first instance of incest? If so, it further undermines the maternal incest view, though one could argue that this gloss could be limited to paternal incest only. Charles, R.H., The Book of the Jubilees, translated by R.H. Charles, available @ www.sacred-texts.com.
[54] E.g., Targum Onkelos deviates from the Masoretic text in that it speaks of Ham telling of his father’s nakedness in the (public) streets to emphasize the public shame he seeks to bring upon his father. Aberbach, Moses and Grossfeld, Bernanrd, Targum Onkelos to Genesis, A Critical Analsysi Together With An English Translation of the Text, University of Denver, Ktav Publishing House, 1982, p. 67. This of course ignores the additional possibility introduced in the Genesis Apocryphon that Noah was drunk, fell asleep and the future “was revealed” to him in a dream. This possible interpretation of uncovered, while appearing to be a stretch, seems to have some exegetical basis though this position goes beyond the purposes of the current analysis. For a discussion of this exegesis, see Machiela, Daniel A., The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees, 2007, p. 203-211, available @ http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07022007-205251/unrestricted/MachielaD072007.pdf
[55] E.g. Book of Enoch 106, where Noah is described with angelic features that confused Methuselah. Methuselah fears his wife has fallen into the sin of human angel sexual relations and that his son Noah is the product of forbidden sexual relations with angels. Thus, the Book of Enoch elevates Noah to a position that is semi-divine. See Genesis Apocryphon also.
[56] There may be a measure of irony in this alternative explanation. The Jewish people regarded Palestine as an interim Holy-of-Holies between the first and final Eden. When viewed this way, God’s requirement to drive the Canaanites out becomes clear. They are sinners, worse, their sins are archetypal sins after the pattern of the sons of God. If Palestine is to be Yahweh’s earthly Holy-of-Holies, it would be necessary to drive the Canaanites out as part of the consecrating and cleansing of Yahweh’s earthly temple. It would secondarily serve as a powerful reminder to God’s people to abstain from sinful practices, particularly archetypal sexual sins as it would be evident to all Israelites Yahweh’s threat to drive them out of Palestine should they fall victim to the sins of the Canaanites. In fact, this seems to be the pattern established by Yahweh. The Canaanites were driven out due to their detestable practices that polluted the land. Subsequently, Israel was driven out due to their sins in following the detestable practices of the Canaanites, similarly defiling God’s temple. Thus, the pattern established with Adam and Cain is seen recapitulated in the Israelites and Canaanites.
[57] See Machiela, Daniel A., The Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20): A Reevaluation of its Text, Interpretive Character, and Relationship to the Book of Jubilees, 2007, p. 203-211, available @ http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-07022007-205251/unrestricted/MachielaD072007.pdf. p. 203-205.
[58] These types of cultural mores are still in force today in the middle east. It is not uncommon for a father and mother to put a son or daughter to death that is disrespectful or rebellious. This practice tragically even happens occasionally in the U.S. among middle easterners who have emigrated to the U.S. Consider also Aliaa elmahdy, an Egyptian girl who posted a nude picture of herself on Facebook. Her actions brought dishonor to Islam and her family, that forced her to flee death threats. While differing from Noah’s nakedness, the story published in der Spiegel provides clues into middle eastern family cultural values. See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-price-egyptian-aliaa-elmahdy-paid-for-posting-nude-photo-online-a-939541.html
[59] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 10-11
[60] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 12
[61] See The Seven’Days’ of the New Creation
[62] There is some debate whether the “great multitude that no one could count” “wearing white robes and holding palm branches” of Revelation 7:9 represents a Johannine vision of the Feast of Tabernacles. It would seem possible that this part of the vision represents the completion of God’s eschatological plan as seen from the standpoint of the great multitude brought through the tribulation enjoying their eternal Sabbatical rest pictured as a Feast of Tabernacles in keeping with the claim that the new heaven and new earth follow the pattern of the seven feast days, the seventh being the Sabbatical Feast of Tabernacles.
[63] John’s use of imagery is impressive. The dragon, whose origin is the deep, the watery abyss, spews water, a symbol of death, at the woman, attempting to sweep her away, into the abyss?, apart from God.
[64] For detailed arguments on water and the mouth as means of deception, see Beale, G.K., The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999, p. 671-673
[65] That this judgment is immediately followed by the picture of Israel as a woman in labor, points to the difficulty for Israel to bring forth the kingdom. The difficulty centers upon necessary judgments upon her for her sin, and this seems reflected in the birthing pangs, which are often emblematic in Scripture of judgment. Simultaneously is the marvelous promise that the harsh judgment is not without purpose, but looks forward to the joys of the coming kingdom and by implication, Israel’s golden era for her righteous.
[66] There is no clearer example of Jerusalem as a symbol of blood-violence than the indictment of our Lord that the blood of all the righteous prophets and the blood of Christ would be upon the city. Given her consistent history of persecution and blood-violence of God’s righteous messengers, no wonder the prediction of wars to the end in talion.