Episode 256 - "Moving on from the ark" - Genesis 9:18-28

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

Gen. 9:20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan;

a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

Gen. 9:26 He also said,

“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem;

and let Canaan be his servant.

27 May God enlarge Japheth,

and let him dwell in the tents of Shem,

and let Canaan be his servant.”

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

As a side note to this week's blog and podcast, I’d like to offer the following commentary with regard to science and the Bible. There are people who hold that science is the only, or perhaps most, authoritative process and source of knowledge. Some of these people view the Bible and other documents viewed as sacred by people of other religions as a collection of fantastic stories that have little or no relevance to people today. The flood narrative is one story for which there is all sorts of criticism and debate, even among people who hold the Bible and the Hebrew Scriptures as sacred.

One problem with this approach and perspective of knowing is that it cannot be scientifically proven that the scientific process is the only or most authoritative means of gaining knowledge and understanding. Looking at the history of science and human reason, science has a terrible “batting average.” What I mean is that scientific efforts often produce errant conclusions. Over time, better methods of observation and new developments help improve the process, and we know more, and we know better. But we don’t know perfectly. Science is a good and valuable tool for us when used with humility and objectively.

The Bible is a document of documents. Within the Bible, there are many forms of literature. There is history, narrative (story - fictional and non-fictional), poetry, wisdom literature, and more. Each form of literature has certain rules that help us understand what is important to receive from that literature. The fundamental distinction between the Bible and books one might have on their bookshelf is that the literature within it is ultimately from a supernatural or divine source (God) that communicates a divine message and knowledge to humanity. To suggest that it has a supernatural aspect is beyond the scope of science to make an accurate judgment because it’s outside the scope of science. As with science, however, we must interpret and use the Scriptures with humility. The Bible has many things that have been proven to be historically accurate. Therefore, one should not readily dismiss things in the Bible that appear to us as incredible, and one should not readily accept as undeniable truth something asserted through science. The flood narrative and the related details are a good example of that.

My whole point in saying this is to encourage you not to get distracted by arguments about the flood, the age of the earth, and so forth. This story and the rest of the Bible tell us about God, humanity, and the trajectory of this grand story from Genesis through Revelation. So, how do we apply this to our text for this week?

First, it would appear that we all are descendants of Noah and his sons. If we take verses 18-19 at face value and understand the phrase “from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed,” it literally means the whole earth, and it’s not hyperbole from an ancient perspective. Does it mean we ignore the Bible if our understanding is limited or incorrect in some way? No. The reason is that this text affirms that Noah and his descendants were ultimately fulfilling the LORD’s commands to be fruitful and fill the earth AND that the LORD was faithful to make that possible.

The next section about Noah becoming drunk and naked reminds us of the Garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they “saw that they were naked” and sought to cover themselves. Sin should bring shame. I would suggest that Ham’s offense against his father is that he brought his father’s nakedness to the attention of his brothers. He wasn’t ashamed by it. Perhaps he was even mocking his father’s condition by looking at him and bringing it to his brothers’ attention. Shem and Japheth honored their father by covering his nakedness.

This story prepares the reader for what happens later with their descendants. Abram (Abraham) is a descendant of “righteous” Shem. He becomes the patriarch of the Israelites. And we’ll see the conflicts with his descendants and descendants of Ham. More generally, we should observe that the problem caused by Adam and Eve’s disobedience is still with Noah and his sons. God didn’t wipe out the sin problem with the flood. Therefore, at this point, we’re still looking for God’s solution to our sin problem.

So, how is this story relevant to us? For one, we could ask ourselves if our perspective about the attitudes and actions of others evokes a sense of shame within us. Do we entertain ourselves by it as did Ham or, as people who desire to follow the LORD’s ways, do we show grace and mercy to others that Shem and Japheth demonstrated to their father? Lessons like this are much more valuable and edifying than arguments over details about a global flood versus a local flood.