Day 4: The Flood

 Today's reading: Genesis 7-9; Psalm 1.

In today's reading, we get the story of the Great Flood and the immediate aftermath. Noah and his family, along with the animals he had brought in the Ark, were all saved, but God "blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth" (7:23). So basically, total destruction and the survivors had to begin everything anew once they left the Ark. 

An ancient nonbiblical account from the Sumerians also survives, the Epic of Gilgamesh, which has many similarities but also notable differences from the Genesis account. Scholars have argued over these since it was discovered in the late 19th century. While it is entertaining, one of the biggest differences is that in Genesis, God makes a covenant with Noah after the Flood, the Noahic Covenant (8:20-9:17), which is not found in Gilgamesh. God promises that "never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth" (9:11). He establishes that man can eat animals, but murder is prohibited. The rainbow becomes a sign of this covenant (9:12-16).

As the BIY Companion, Vol 1, notes:

God's prohibition of murder reminds us of the gift of human life and the dignity of the human person. There is a distinction between animals and human beings: animals may be killed and eaten, but human lives - because of our distinct dignity - may not be taken. Our dignity comes from being made in God's image and likeness. (p. 12)

So sorry, vegan activists, but meat is definitely remaining on the menu!

The last part of today's reading in Genesis is an odd one on the surface. Noah gets drunk and Ham is said to "saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside" (9:21-22). Shem and Japheth enter the tent and "covered the nakedness of their father (9:23). After this, Noah curses Ham's son Canaan, while blessing Shem and Japheth. What are we to make of this? The Ignatius Bible states in the footnotes:

Variously interpreted to mean that Ham looked perversely upon his naked father (voyeurism), that he emasculated his father (castration), or that he sexually abused his father (homosexual incest). More likely, the expression is an idiom for maternal incest... So understood, Ham is guilty of having sexual relations with his mother, and this explains why a curse falls, not on himself, but on his son, Canaan, who would seem to be the child conceived of this sinful union. (p. 70)

The last does seem to be a reasonable explanation, though it does seem unfair that Canaan, even if he were the product of an incestual union, would bear the curse for his father's sin. Different times, different culture, I guess. And with this, today's reading in Genesis ends.

Psalm 1 is a short one, more like a meditation on the way of the righteous and that of the wicked than a hymn of praise like the previous ones. It's a brief, good read.