Tag Archives: Genesis 6:14

Atonement, Part 1

Posted on by

I plan to begin a slow pilgrimage through kâphar, which will at a minimum include surveying kôpher and kippûr.  The first occurrences of kâphar and kôpher according to Strong’s Concordance are found in, Make rooms in the ark, and cover (kâphar, וכפרת; Septuagint: ἀσφαλτώσεις, a form of ἀσφαλτόω) it with pitch (kôpher, בכפר: Septuagint: ἀσφάλτῳ, a form of ἄσφαλτος) inside and out.[1]  But I’m going to set that aside.

The note (48) in the NET reads:

The Hebrew term כָּפָר (kafar, “to cover, to smear” [= to caulk]) appears here in the Qal stem with its primary, nonmetaphorical meaning. The Piel form כִּפֶּר (kipper), which has the metaphorical meaning “to atone, to expiate, to pacify,” is used in Levitical texts (see HALOT 493-94 s.v. כפר). Some authorities regard the form in v. 14 as a homonym of the much more common Levitical term (see BDB 498 s.v. כָּפָר).

I think homonym was used here as I have used homograph:[2] “a word of the same written form as another but of different meaning and usually origin, whether pronounced the same way or not, as bear ‘to carry; support’ and bear ‘animal’ or lead ‘to conduct’ and lead ‘metal;’ a homograph.”[3]  A table showing the translations of the occurrences of kôpher from Genesis 6:14 – Numbers 35:32 in the KJV, NET and the Septuagint follows:

Form of kôpher

 Reference KJV NET

Septuagint
כפר Exodus 21:30 If there be laid on him a sum of money… If a ransom is set for him… λύτρα, a form of λύτρον
Exodus 30:12 …then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul… …then each man is to pay a ransom for his life…
Numbers 35:31 …ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: …you must not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death…
Numbers 35:32 …ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge… …you must not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a town of refuge…
בכפר Genesis 6:14 …and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. …and cover it with pitch inside and out. ἀσφάλτῳ, a form of ἄσφαλτος

Clearly kôpher (כפר) in Exodus 21:30; 30:12; Numbers 35:31 and 32 is a homograph for kâphar (כפר) in Exodus 29:33 (NET): They are to eat those things by which atonement (kâphar, כפר) was made to consecrate and to set them apart, but no one else may eat them, for they are holy.  I am more than content to assume that the homographs translated, and cover it with pitch, have next to nothing to do with atonement.  John wrote (1 John 1:5-7 NET):

Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.  If we say we have fellowship with him and yet keep on walking in the darkness, we are lying and not practicing the truth.  But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

I can appreciate that something like asphalt smeared inside and outside of a wooden vessel that preserved people through a judgment of water bears a vague similarity to atonement that will preserve people through a judgment of fire (2 Peter 3:5-7).  But and cover it with pitch sounds more like Achan burying a nice robe from Babylon, two hundred silver pieces, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels[4] in the ground right in the middle of [his] tent.[5]  It sounds like David calling Uriah home from the front and saying, “Go down to your home and relax.”[6]  When Uriah’s loyalty to his comrades-in-arms proved such that he was useless in David’s attempt to cover his sin with pitch, the king sent him back to the front carrying a letter to his commanding officer that read: “Station Uriah in the thick of the battle and then withdraw from him so he will be cut down and killed (nâkâh).”[7]

In both circumstances yehôvâh brought these pitch-covered-sins to light (Joshua 7:10-26; 2 Samuel 12:1-14).  Thinking atonement was a covering of pitch for sin probably had a lot to do with my conclusion that the Gospel was more a mind trick God played on Himself than something of value for me.

Achan and his family were stoned and burned for theft.  David’s sins of adultery and murder[8] were forgiven or passed over.  I can’t pass by here without at least considering this moral calculus in some way beyond the obvious, that David was a king and Achan’s only claim to fame was the spectacle of his execution.

All the silver and gold, as well as bronze and iron items, belong to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה), Joshua commanded.  They must go into the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) treasury.[9]  If I hear this with an unbelieving heart it’s easy to see why Friedrich Nietzsche considered Judaism (and not only Judaism) a religion concocted by weak, power-hungry priests.

The ‘law’, the ‘will of God’, the ‘holy book’, ‘inspiration’ – All these are just words for the conditions under which priests come to power and maintain their power, – these concepts can be found at the bottom of all priestly organizations, all structures of priestly or philosophical-priestly control. The ‘holy lie’ – this is common to Confucius, the law book of Manu, Mohammed, and the Christian church: and it is not absent from Plato either. ‘The truth is there ‘: wherever you hear this, it means that the priest is lying.

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ (1888), 55.

An article, “The Hebrew Bible in Nietzsche’s philosophy of religion,” by Jaco Gericke offers an interesting overview on this subject.  My affection for Nietzsche comes from long hours spent with him and Jesus.  Nietzsche, of course, is dead and had no opportunity for rebuttal.  It’s difficult to say how much that difference alone encouraged and maintained my faith in Jesus.  Still I hesitate either to censor Nietzsche’s writings or to promote them as a test of spiritual manhood.  Consider Jaco Gericke.

In “Confessions of a Died-Again Christian,” an interview hosted by Robert M. Price online, Professor Gericke gave his testimony, a born-again Christian who became first a “died-again” Christian then an atheist while studying to become a missionary.  After I listened to it I spent the rest of the day pouting.  That’s what I do now rather than throwing a hissy fit or trying to muscle on in my own strength.

“Either one of these men,” I prayed, “could have been better at this than I am.”

Professor Gericke never described the Bible as the product of lying priests (or preachers, as the case may be).  He described “the system”:

The system has everything covered.  So whatever your problem is, there’s an answer for that somewhere out there…
And you recognize how religion, how the system has controlled you and told you stories about the way things work, and you see the system for what it is…
You also understand how the system, with apologetics, has everything covered.  So to get out is really as close to a miracle as you can get.

He went to the university originally “to become a missionary to share the joy I found [after a conversion experience] with other people.”  Over time that desire was replaced by another, to be “academically respectable.”  Eventually he read Beyond Fundamentalism by James Barr.  “It focuses so much on the Bible and the text,” he described the experience of reading Barr, “that in the end what happens is that your Christian ethics destroys your Christian dogma because you just follow the truth and you do introspection.”  Mr. Price concurred: “The all important personal relationship with Jesus, the sole point of the Bible according to most of these guys [e.g., top notch evangelical…scholars], never occurs in the Bible.”

True enough, the words personal relationship with Jesus do not occur in the Bible.  The hope and promise of the new covenant reads (Jeremiah 31:34 NET Table):

“People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”

Judas (not Iscariot) said to [Jesus] (John14:22-24 NASB):

“Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?”  Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep (τηρήσει, a form of τηρέω) My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.  He who does not love Me does not keep (τηρεῖ, another form of τηρέω) My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.”

Professor Gericke’s testimony wasn’t a tale of following Yahweh/Jesus through the scriptures to know Him and his Father.  Rather, it was a proxy war he conducted in his own mind between his favorite fundamentalist apologists and the writings of Julius Wellhausen, David Strauss, biblical criticism, the philosophy of religion and the history of Yahweh, along with James Barr.  His fundamentalist champions didn’t measure up, so the “truth” set him free (John 8:31, 32 NET).

Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, “If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth (ἀλήθειαν, a form of ἀλήθεια), and the truth (ἀλήθεια) will set you free.”

Even if Jesus alluded to a stoic maxim (as Mr. Price asserted) truth was not an abstract concept to Him, certainly not the writings of Julius Wellhausen, David Strauss, biblical criticism, the philosophy of religion and the history of Yahweh, along with James Barr.  Set them apart in the truth (ἀληθείᾳ, another form of ἀλήθεια), He prayed to his Father, your word is truth (ἀλήθεια).[10]  By word (λόγος) Jesus may have alluded to Himself—I am the way, and the truth (ἀληθείας, another form of ἀλήθεια), and the life[11]—but He was born a human baby and socialized into all of the rabbinic lore of his time.  He grew to become the person I know and love by preferring a collection of writings remarkably similar to the Old Testament I read today, which He called τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13; Luke 8:21; Luke 11:28) or ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (Luke 8:11; John 10:35).  Both were translated the word of God.

After his resurrection He said to his disciples (Luke 24:44-49 NET):

“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” [Table]. Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of these things.  And look, I am sending you what my Father promised.  But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” [Table].

His devotion to the truth of those writings was so fierce it terrified Peter and the other disciples (Matthew 26:52-56 NET):

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place!  For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword [Table].  Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?  How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?”  At that moment Jesus said to the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw?  Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me.  But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.”  Then all the disciples left him and fled.

Unqualified or not I will get up each morning, take whatever faithfulness I am given and follow Jesus through the scriptures.  I desire to do this to know Him and his Father.  He has given me a hunger and thirst for his righteousness.  And I need to do this lest the sin in my flesh overtake me.  Who would have thought of my sinfulness, my utter inability to do righteousness apart from the fruit of the Spirit, as my advantage over Jaco Gericke or Robert Price? I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,[12] Jesus answered the Pharisees and their experts in the law.

Admittedly, it takes some faith to find any coherent knowledge of God in his seemingly disparate judgments of Achan and David, but I think they are consistent with Jesus’ command: Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.[13]

Achan was part of the army that had judged/condemned Jericho: They annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle, sheep, and donkeys.[14]  David sent out Joab with his officers and the entire Israelite army.  They defeated the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah.  But David stayed behind in Jerusalem.[15]  Both were judged accordingly.

“This is what the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) says,” Nathan said to David, “‘I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your own household!  Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!  Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight.’”[16]

Despite Nathan’s warning David was merciful to his sons Amnon (2 Samuel 13:1-21) and Absalom (2 Samuel 14:21-33), though that mercy was perhaps the most immediate cause[17] of the prophecy’s fulfillment.  Absalom parlayed Amnon’s death (2 Samuel 13:23-37) into a credible political argument that he was the law and order choice for king (2 Samuel 15:1-6).  I have thought at times that David—the chief law enforcement official in Israel—if he had been strict with his sons, if he had at least left Absalom in self-imposed exile, may have avoided the consequence of Nathan’s prophecy.  But Jesus said in a parable (Matthew 18:32-35 NET):

“Then his lord called the first slave and said to him, ‘Evil slave!  I forgave (ἀφῆκα, a form of ἀφίημι) you all that debt because you begged me!  Should you not have shown mercy to your fellow slave, just as I showed it to you?’  And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, another form of ἀφίημι) your brother from your heart.”

Paul quoted David from the Septuagint: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered…[18]  The original word in Hebrew was not kâphar or kôpher from Genesis 6:14, and cover it with pitch.  David chose kâsâh (כסוי): The waters completely inundated the earth so that even all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered (kâsâh).[19]  Two forms of kâsâh occur in this Psalm (32:1-6 Tanakh):

Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered (kâsâh, כסוי) [Table].  Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile [Table].  When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.  For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer.  Selah.

I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid (kâsâh, כסיתי).  I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.  Selah.

For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

Therefore you are without excuse, Paul wrote believers in Rome, whoever you are, when you judge someone else (Romans 2:1-8 NET):

For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.  Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth (ἀλήθειαν, a form of ἀλήθεια) against those who practice such things.  And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment?  Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?  But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!  He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey (ἀπειθοῦσι, a form of ἀπειθέω) the truth (ἀληθείᾳ, another form of ἀλήθεια) but follow unrighteousness.

Near the end of the interview with Jaco Gericke, Robert Price described what he called “Practicing the Absence of God”:

What you use to say was the leading of the Holy Spirit, this internal voice—“Oh, don’t you want to come back? Aren’t you really just trying to escape the implications of the truth?”—you have to eventually regard that as you once did temptations to sin, because intellectually that’s what’s going on.  That’s what it is.  You have to say, “No, I’m sorry, I know better than that.  I’m not going to listen to that.  I’m going to go ahead and make a new start.”

Once you have Nietzsche in your head it’s easy to argue that Jesus’ command, Do not judge, was given, not because He is Yahweh come in human flesh but, because He was as desperate for the scriptures to be true as I am, and so, reasoned and argued in a similar manner.  He was ignorant of, or confused about, the esoteric knowledge that Jaco Gericke and Robert Price possess.  Of course, if Jesus was ignorant or confused, please grant me his ignorance and confusion.  For once you have Nietzsche in your head, it’s just as easy to see that Nietzsche raised unbelief to a high art and faithfully followed that art as its reductio ad absurdum.

A table comparing Romans 4:7 and Psalm 32:1 in the Septuagint follows.

 

Romans 4:7 (NET)

 Parallel Greek Psalm 32:1 (Septuagint)

Psalm 31:1 (NETS)
Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered… μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν αἱ ἀνομίαι καὶ ὧν ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι Happy are those whose lawless behavior was forgiven and whose sins were covered over.

[1] Genesis 6:14b (NET)

[2] Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 14; Forgiven or Passed Over? Part 4

[3] homonym

[4] Joshua 7:21a (NET) Table

[5] Joshua 7:21b (NET) Table

[6] 2 Samuel 11:8a (NET)

[7] 2 Samuel 11:15 (NET), ונכה

[8] It is not the same Hebrew word as Exodus 20:13, but Nathan said, You have killed (hârag, הרגת) him with the sword of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 12:9b NET).  But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill (hârag, להרגו) him cunningly, yehôvâh said, you will take him even from my altar that he may die (Exodus 21:14 NET).

[9] Joshua 6:19 (NET)

[10] John 17:17 (NET)

[11] John 14:6 (NET)

[12] Luke 5:32 (NET)

[13] Matthew 7:1, 2 (NET) Table

[14] Joshua 6:21 (NET)

[15] 2 Samuel 11:1 (NET)

[16] 2 Samuel 12:11, 12 (NET) Table1 Table2

[17] I have written some on this topic: David’s Forgiveness, Part 5; David’s Forgiveness, Part 6; David’s Forgiveness, Part 7; David’s Forgiveness, Part 8; David’s Forgiveness, Part 9; David’s Forgiveness, Part 10 ; David’s Forgiveness, Part 11; David’s Forgiveness, Part 12; David’s Forgiveness, Part 13

[18] Romans 4:7 (NET)

[19] Genesis 7:19 (NET), ויכסו

Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 10

Posted on by

“Because you obeyed (shâmaʽ, שמעת; Septuagint: ἤκουσας, a form of ἀκούω) your wife, the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) said to Adam, and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”[1]

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) had commanded Adam: “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”[2]  Eve saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, so she took some of its fruit and ate it.[3]  When she brought some to Adam she brought not only her recommendation but empirical evidence that she had both touched it and eaten it and had not died.

Adam preferred the voice of his wife to the voice of yehôvâh.  When Jacob preferred the beautiful Rachel over Leah the Lord saw that Leah was unloved (śânêʼ).[4]  In other words Adam hated the voice of God relative to that of his wife, the voice of God was unloved.  For the sake of argument I’ll describe Adam’s iniquity as defiance: Adam was not deceived,[5] Paul assured Timothy.

Adam’s defiance visited upon Cain became a murderous rage: Cain became very angry [Table]…Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”  While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.[6]  Cain’s murderous rage combined with the memory of the mercy yehôvâh showed him became a defiant self-righteousness in his descendant Lamech, perhaps even incipient tribal law (Genesis 4:23, 24 NET):

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah!  Listen (shâmaʽ, שמען; Septuagint: ἀκούσατέ, another form of ἀκούω) to me!  You wives of Lamech, hear my words!  I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for hurting me.  If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!”

The upshot of this relatively unhindered visiting of fathers’ iniquity upon the sons was: The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence.[7]  So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.”[8]

I began this portion of my study of fear to understand how the translators of the NET “arrived at I punish as a translation of the Hebrew word pâqad (פקד)” in Deuteronomy 5:9.  If punishment could arrest this relatively unhindered visiting of fathers’ iniquity upon the sons before it culminated in a death sentence for all living creatures it would be a welcome relief.  This brings me to the third occurrence of ואפקד (pâqad) translated punish or punishment (and I have brought the punishment) in the NET (Leviticus 18:25 NET):

Therefore the land has become unclean and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it, so that the land has vomited out its inhabitants.

This was not a reference to the violence of the antediluvian world but to the worship/sexual practices of the inhabitants of Canaan before Israel entered the promised land.  But first I need to consider whether the visiting of the fathers’ iniquity upon the sons was quite as unhindered as I have imagined it.

I was born and raised in the latter half of the twentieth century near the northern edge of the Bible belt in the United States of America.  I am a hardcore materialist with some Jesus jelly smeared on top.  I acknowledge this to confess the iniquity of my fathers, not to blame them or excuse myself, but to begin to claim my freedom from my own acceptance of that iniquity as my truth.

The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground (ʼădâmâh)![9] yehôvâh told Cain.  I hear this as a poetic reference to yehôvâh’s omniscience (Psalm 139:1-12).  These days I’m not unwilling to take it literally, that Abel’s blood had a voice that yehôvâh could hear crying out from the ground, but it’s not natural to me.  I am the dark side of, Train a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.[10]  Still, opening myself to its possibility gives me a different perspective.

So now, you are banished (ʼârar, ארור) from the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה: NET footnote 28): Heb “cursed are you from the ground”), yehôvâh continued, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand [Table].  When you try to cultivate the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) it will no longer yield its best for you.  You will be a homeless wanderer on the earth [Table].[11]  To Adam He had already said, cursed (ʼârar, ארורה) is the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה), for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.[12]

I can begin to accept these as revelation of the very nature of the ground created by a loving, gracious and holy God, how the earth itself responds to its sinful inhabitants, rather than as post hoc punishments invented in the moment.  And I can begin to see the nature of the earth, the ground we live on, as a deterrent to the unhindered visiting of the fathers’ iniquity upon the sons.

Cain couldn’t supply himself with food by his own cultivation of the ground; the ground would no longer yield its best for him.  Cain built a city, a place where people could live in community and trade with one another for things they all needed.  Did he honor those still righteous enough to cultivate the ground that would not yield its best to him?  Did he learn from them?

The text doesn’t say.  It says, The earth (ʼerets, הארץ) was ruined in the sight of God; the earth (ʼerets, הארץ) was filled with violence.  If I accept that the blood of victims has a voice that yehôvâh can hear crying out from the ground, crying out to Him to act, and multiply that by the increase of population over the many generations I can at least imagine the cacophony in his ears and begin to appreciate his choices (Genesis 6:6, 7 NET):

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) regretted that he had made humankind on the earth (ʼerets, בארץ), and he was highly offended.  So the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”

The religious mind must sit quietly here to meditate that at this moment in history yehôvâh preferred to destroy all life (air and ground) but that which could be saved in a boat and to start over again rather than to establish a law or a religion (aside from the rudiments of animal sacrifice handed down from Adam, Cain and Abel).  One might say that yehôvâh hated law and religion, law and religion were unloved relative to starting over again with a remnant of the former world.  But after the flood (Genesis 8:20-22 NET):

Noah built an altar to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה).  He then took some of every kind of clean animal and clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.  And the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) smelled the soothing aroma and (yehôvâh, יהוה) said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) because of humankind, even though the inclination of their minds (lêb, לב) is evil from childhood on.  I will never again destroy everything that lives, as I have just done.  While the earth continues to exist, planting time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.”

God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) spoke one law to address violence, “Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) has made humankind”[13] and one revised dietary law: Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority.  You may eat any moving thing that lives.  As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.[14]  I assume that the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil did not survive the flood and had become a nonissue (Genesis 3:22).  But in Leviticus yehôvâh was establishing both a law and a religion in clear contrast to those originated by men.  Now that will have to wait for another essay.

In my first draft of this essay I had hoped to avoid Noah’s curse: Cursed (ʼârar, ארור; Septuagint: ἐπικατάρατος) be Canaan![15]  But I couldn’t get away with it.  And I have to admit it is more germane than I want it to be.  If Noah’s story (Genesis 9:20-27) were about almost anyone else we would take it simply as James’ source text (James 3:7-12 NET):

For every kind of animal, bird, reptile, and sea creature is subdued and has been subdued by humankind.  But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse (καταρώμεθα, a form of καταράομαι) people made in God’s image.  From the same mouth come blessing and cursing (κατάρα).  These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.  A spring does not pour out fresh water and bitter water from the same opening, does it?  Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a vine produce figs?  Neither can a salt water spring produce fresh water.

But it was Noah, the heir of the world, who spoke this curse and this blessing so we are taught: “God’s blessing is going to rest directly on Shem, indirectly on Japheth, and His cursing is going to rest upon Ham’s son Canaan.”[16]  “So Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.  The problem which must arise from the cursing of Canaan is this: Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham?  Beyond this, why did God curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man?”[17]  The text is fairly clear that Noah not God spoke both the curse and the blessing.  To this point Moses had been very explicit when ʼĕlôhı̂ym or yehôvâh spoke.  Why do we want to believe that Noah spoke for Him here?

Noah was a godly man; he was blameless (tâmı̂ym, תמים; Septuagint: τέλειος) among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[18]  Perhaps we want tâmı̂ym to be an absolute term.  But this was not Paul writing, According to the righteousness stipulated in the law [as understood by first century Pharisees] I was blameless (ἄμεμπτος).[19]  Noah was blameless (KJV: perfect) among his contemporaries[20] (dôr, בדרתיו; Septuagint: γενεᾷ), those condemned to death for their violence: Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time.[21]  About all one can say for sure about Noah is that he wasn’t a murderer and perhaps not every inclination of the thoughts of [his mind] was only evil all the time.

God said to Noah, Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood.  Make rooms in the ark, and cover it with pitch inside and out.[22]  And Noah did all that God commanded him – he did indeed.[23]  Through his faithfulness Noah was declared a herald of righteousness: and if [God] did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah, a herald of righteousness, along with seven others, when God brought a flood on an ungodly world…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment…[24]  By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.  Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.[25]

But Noah found favor (chên, חן; Septuagint: χάριν) in the sight of the Lord.[26]  As followers of Jesus it is more prudent to believe that Noah’s faithfulness was on account of yehôvâh’s grace rather than due to some inherent quality of Noah’s: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.[27]  There is no one righteous, not even one…[28] [i.e., in and of himself] there is no one who shows kindness, not even one,[29] Paul quoted the Psalm of David (Psalm 14:2, 3 Tanakh):

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Jesus’ assessment of Noah and of the entire Old Testament is very helpful here: Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’[30]  Noah didn’t miraculously escape the corruption of the flesh of Adam.  Noah didn’t speak for God unless the text had said that Noah spoke the word of God.

Noah’s “words came to pass, so we believe he was inspired by God.”[31]  I know of no place in Scripture where it is written, “this took place to fulfill Noah’s prophecy.”  Generations of Bible expositors would surely have quoted it if they had found it, so the contention that Noah’s curse and blessing “came to pass” is in the eye of the beholder.

“The act of Ham could not go unpunished.  In the curse of Noah upon Canaan, he was not punishing him personally for something his father Ham had done.  The words of Noah refer not to Canaan himself, but to the nation that would come from him…Though we are not told the exact sin of Ham, we do know that it was reprehensible enough for God to curse the line of his son Canaan.  The judgment was not directed to Canaan personally but rather to his descendants.”[32]  As prophecies go, then—and the Scriptures do not record that Canaan himself was ever enslaved to his brothers—one need not fear Noah as a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21, 22 NET):

“Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that a message is not from the Lord?’ – whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

“Noah’s words did come to pass in the future, as we read that many of Canaan’s descendants were either killed or put under tribute by Israel (descendants of Shem) during the times of Joshua and the Judges, and later by King Solomon.”  God’s words will come to pass but the simple fact that a man’s words come to pass doesn’t make them God’s words (Deuteronomy 13:1-4 NET):

Suppose a prophet or one who foretells by dreams should appear among you and show you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder should come to pass concerning what he said to you, namely, “Let us follow other gods” – gods whom you have not previously known – “and let us serve them.”  You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer, for the Lord your God will be testing you to see if you love him with all your mind and being.  You must follow the Lord your God and revere only him; and you must observe his commandments, obey him, serve him, and remain loyal to him.

I’m not accusing Noah of being a false prophet.  I’m not accusing Noah of being any kind of prophet at all.  If I’m accusing Noah of anything it is that he spoke angrily, self-righteously, with a hangover.  But what I must believe about God to believe that He cursed a nation of people for something a man did many generations before those people were even born is a very different god than the One I am knowing through the Scriptures.

I concede that one who believes this is God because “many of Canaan’s descendants were either killed or put under tribute by Israel (descendants of Shem) during the times of Joshua and the Judges, and later by King Solomon” may also believe that He will punish the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for the sin of the fathers who reject (śânêʼ, לשׁנאי) me…[33]  Still, I hope that one may be willing to concede that Noah’s curse was not the love that does no wrong to a neighbor, not the love that is the fulfillment of the law.[34]

While I don’t believe that Noah’s curse, or his blessing, were the immutable Word of God I do think his curse is a terrifying example of God visiting Noah’s iniquity upon Canaan, terrifying precisely because the effect of Noah’s iniquity[35] has seemed so sure and certain that so many have assumed it was divine prophecy.  We’re not told how Canaan reacted to Noah’s curse.  I know how I would react to Noah’s “godliness,” “blamelessness,” and his “walk” with God unless I were willing to forgive him for his drunken rant.  And I know that Canaan’s descendants practiced a law and religion inimical to yehôvâh.

I’ll return to Leviticus 18 in another essay.

[1] Genesis 3:17 (NET)

[2] Genesis 2:16, 17 (NET)

[3] Genesis 3:6a (NET)

[4] Genesis 29:31a (NET)

[5] 1 Timothy 2:14a (NET)

[6] Genesis 4:5b, 8 (NET)

[7] Genesis 6:11 (NET)

[8] Genesis 6:13a (NET)

[9] Genesis 4:10b (NET) Table

[10] Proverbs 22:6 (NET)

[11] Genesis 4:11, 12 (NET)

[12] Genesis 3:17b-19 (NET)

[13] Genesis 9:6 (NET)

[14] Genesis 9:2b, 3 (NET)

[15] Genesis 9:25a (NET)

[16] J. Ligon Duncan, “The Cursing of Canaan,” Sermon on Genesis 9:18-29, November 22, 1998, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi

[17] Bob Deffinbaugh, “10. The Nakedness of Noah and the Cursing of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-10:32),” Bible.org

[18] Genesis 6:9b (NET)

[19] Philippians 3:6b (NET)

[20] NET note 32: Heb “Noah was a godly man, blameless in his generations.” The singular “generation” can refer to one’s contemporaries, i.e., those living at a particular point in time. The plural “generations” can refer to successive generations in the past or the future. Here, where it is qualified by “his” (i.e., Noah’s), it refers to Noah’s contemporaries, comprised of the preceding generation (his father’s generation), those of Noah’s generation, and the next generation (those the same age as his children). In other words, “his generations” means the generations contemporary with him. See BDB 190 s.v. דוֹר.

[21] Genesis 6:5b (NET)

[22] Genesis 6:14 (NET)

[23] Genesis 6:22 (NET)

[24] 2 Peter 2:5, 9 (NET)

[25] Hebrews 11:7 (NET)

[26] Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[27] Genesis 6:9 (KJV)

[28] Romans 3:10b (NET)

[29] Romans 3:12b (NET)

[30] John 3:7 (NET)

[31] Troy Lacey, “The Curse of Canaan,” October 12, 2012, Answers In Genesis

[32] Don Stewart, “Why Was Canaan Cursed Instead of Ham?,” Blue Letter Bible

[33] Deuteronomy 5:9b (NET)

[34] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[35] To those who hold that the fourth generation is a limit to Noah’s iniquity, I concede the point.  It would not be accurate to blame Noah’s iniquity for the sins of Canaanites in the time of Israel’s conquest.  My point is that iniquity is like a snowball rolling downhill, gaining mass and momentum, as long as people continue to reject, hate, prefer something other than, yehôvâh.