And Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
20. builded an altar unto the Lord ] It will be noticed that, in this account by J, the first thing that Noah does, on leaving the ark, is to build an altar, and to offer sacrifice. In J’s estimation sacrifice was primitive, and not merely Mosaic, in origin. See note on Gen 7:2.
In P there is no mention of “altar” or “sacrifice” before the institution of the Levitical system in the wilderness.
of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl ] The clean animals were used for sacrifice. Cf. Gen 7:2. Observe the mention of “clean fowl” implying the distinction between clean and unclean fowl. This distinction was not observed in Gen 7:3; Gen 7:8. The number of “clean” animals, seven pairs of each, in the ark, according to J, would allow for the offering of sacrifice.
In the Babylonian account, also, sacrifices were at once offered to the gods on quitting the ark.
and offered burnt offerings ] The word for “burnt offering” is ‘lh, which is derived from a verb meaning “to go up.” A burnt-offering, or ‘lh, was the sacrifice which “went up” to God, being different from other sacrifices, because the whole of it was consumed in the fire of the altar. The offerer of an ‘lh ate nothing of the sacrifice; nor did the priest. It was in an especial sense a propitiatory offering: compare David’s offering in 2Sa 24:25. The ‘lh is different from the minah of Gen 4:3. LXX renders , Lat. holocausta.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
20 22. Noah’s Burnt-offering and Jehovah’s Acceptance of it. (J.)
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 8:20
And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord
Noahs sacrifice
I.
THERE IS AN EVIDENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF NOAH AND THOSE OF CAIN AND ABEL. Here, under Gods guidance, the mound of turf gives place to the altar which is built. An idea is discovered in the dignity of the inferior creatures; the worthiest are selected for an oblation to God; the fire which consumes, the flame which ascends, are used to express the intention of him who presents the victim.
II. WE MUST FEEL THAT THERE WAS AN INWARD PROGRESS IN THE HEART OF MAN corresponding to this progress in his method of uttering his submission and his aspirations. Noah must have felt that he was representing all human beings; that he was not speaking what was in himself so much as offering the homage of the restored universe.
III. THE FOUNDATION OF SACRIFICE IS LAID IN THE FIXED WILL OF GOD; in His fixed purpose to assert righteousness; in the wisdom which adapts its means to the condition of the creature for whose sake they are used. The sacrifice assumes eternal right to be in the Ruler of the universe, all the caprice to have come from man, from his struggle to be an independent being, from his habit of distrust. When trust is restored by the discovery that God means all for his good, then he brings the sacrifice as a token of his surrender. (F. D. Maurice, M. A.)
I. That worship should succeed every act of Divine deliverance.
Sacrificial worship
The text teaches–
II. That sacrifice is the only medium through which acceptable service can be rendered. Noahs sacrifice expressed–
1. A feeling of supreme thankfulness.
2. A feeling of personal guilt.
III. That no act of worship escapes Divine notice.
IV. That human intercession vitally affects the interests of the race. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The devout conduct of a good man after a special deliverance from imminent danger
I. THAT NOAH GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED HIS DELIVERANCE AS FROM GOD.
II. THAT NOAH DEVOUTLY OFFERED TO GOD A SACRIFICE IN TOKEN OF HIS DELIVERANCE.
1. This sacrifice was the natural outcome of Noahs gratitude.
2. This sacrifice was not precluded by any excuse consequent upon the circumstances of Noah.
III. That the sacrifice of Noah was ACCEPTABLE TO GOD AND PREVENTIVE OF FURTHER EVIL TO THE WORLD.
1. It was fragrant.
2. It was preventive of calamity.
3. It was preservative of the natural agencies of the universe. (J. S.Exell, M. A.)
Noahs offering on coming forth from the ark, and its results
I. THE OCCASION ON WHICH THIS OFFERING WAS MADE.
1. How impressively would Noah and his family be reminded of the Divine forbearance which had been displayed to the whole world.
2. With what solemn awe would Noah and his family now view the earth bearing on every part of its surface the marks of recent vengeance.
3. With what adoring and grateful feeling would Noah and his family view their own preservation on this occasion.
II. ITS NATURE.
1. An expression of gratitude.
2. An acknowledgment of dependence.
3. A lively exhibition of his faith in the future atonement, as well as an appropriate testimony that his recent preservation was owing to the efficacy of that atonement.
III. ITS RESULTS.
1. The offering was accepted.
2. The promise which was given.
3. The covenant which was made. (Sketches of Sermons.)
Priest, altar, sacrifice
1. A believing priest.
2. A sanctified altar.
3. A clean sacrifice.
4. A type of Christ. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Fragrant offerings
I. NOAHS SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS.
1. Observe WHAT HE OFFERED.
(1) Burnt offerings.
(2) Clean beasts.
2. See how he offered.
(1) Voluntarily.
(2) Promptly.
(3) Liberally.
(4) Simply.
II. THE LORDS GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE THEREOF.
1. The Lord accepts a limited offering, if it be our best.
2. It is the sacrifice of faith which pleases God.
3. The Lord loves gratitude in return for mercies received.
4. The Lord visits the remnant of His people where there is family devotion.
5. In seeking to please God, the Christian secures richest blessings. (The Congregational Pulpit.)
Noahs sacrifice blessing the world; and Gods decree for all nature
I. THE ACCEPTANCE OF NOAHS SACRIFICE AND ITS TYPICAL IMPORT.
1. Look at the acceptance of Noahs sacrifice.
2. Noahs sacrifice was typical of Christs, and like His brought a blessing on the world.
II. THE WISE ECONOMY OF GOD, IN HIS WISE LAWS OF NATURE FOR TEMPORAL BLESSINGS.
1. The wisdom and benevolence of God are visible in the variety of the seasons, and in the profusion of earthly blessings.
2. The wisdom of God is visible for faith in all His providential arrangements for the good of the world.
III. PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS.
1. Reflect that it is because of Christs sacrifice the whole world is blessed.
2. Reflect how God deals with sinful men in great long suffering mercy.
3. Reflect and remember that the Lord Jesus shall stand like Noah, when a deluge of fire rolls over this world. (J. G. Angley, M. A.)
The worshippers of the new world
1. It was an altar of obedience. With Noah the will of God was paramount. What is religion but obedience?–the obedience of faith–of which the entire simplicity constitutes its true perfection. Noahs career in the new world began in the spirit of essential obedience. At the command, Go forth, the Ark is deserted; and, doubtless, in the spirit of faith the altar was erected.
2. It was an altar of gratitude and dedication. Noah was grateful to his Almighty Friend; and, as gratitude is a quality which loses its fragrance by delay, so he postponed every business and consideration to the thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.
3. It was an altar of propitiation. This is its most important feature. Worship and sacrifice are incorporated and identified from the beginning of the world. Man was always a sinner. He could never approach his Maker in any other character.
4. The altar of Noah was a family altar. He was the priest of his family. He required their presence before the throne of grace. He persuaded them to assist in praising God, and in making a covenant by sacrifice. A family altar is, transcendently and incalculably, a family blessing. With Noah, the worship of God was the first business he attended to. He lacked neither calls of necessity nor momentous cares; but he postponed all ether considerations to the service of God. Not like the majority amongst us, who fancy that they have too much to do to devote any time to religion. In the patriarchs worship there was no trace of selfishness. Many think there is no worship like free worship, and are most willing to pray where they have little to pay. What a reproof may they find in Noah! The seventh part of his whole stock and substance he dedicated to God. He reasoned not about future wants, but made an instant and a whole burnt offering to his Maker. He did it because it was Gods appointment. (C. Burton, LL. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 20. Noah builded an altar] As we have already seen that Adam, Cain, and Abel, offered sacrifices, there can be no doubt that they had altars on which they offered them; but this, builded by Noah, is certainly the first on record. It is worthy of remark that, as the old world began with sacrifice, so also did the new. Religion or the proper mode of worshipping the Divine Being, is the invention or institution of God himself; and sacrifice, in the act and design, is the essence of religion. Without sacrifice, actually offered or implied, there never was, there never can be, any religion. Even in the heavens, a lamb is represented before the throne of God as newly slain, Re 5:6; Re 5:12-13. The design of sacrificing is two-fold: the slaying and burning of the victim point out, 1st, that the life of the sinner is forfeited to Divine justice; 2dly, that his soul deserves the fire of perdition.
The Jews have a tradition that the place where Noah built his altar was the same in which the altar stood which was built by Adam, and used by Cain and Abel, and the same spot on which Abraham afterwards offered up his son Isaac.
The word mizbach, which we render altar, signifies properly a place for sacrifice, as the root zabach signifies simply to slay. Altar comes from the Latin altus, high or elevated, because places for sacrifice were generally either raised very high or built on the tops of hills and mountains; hence they are called high places in the Scriptures; but such were chiefly used for idolatrous purposes.
Burnt-offerings] See the meaning of every kind of offering and sacrifice largely explained on Le 7:1-38.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is the first altar we read of, but not the first which was built; for the sacrifices which were offered before, Gen 4:3-4, presuppose an altar. Therefore it is no sufficient evidence that such things were not done because they are not said to be done in Scripture; which will be a useful consideration for the understanding of many passages in Scripture hereafter.
The first thing Noah doth, is to pay his debt of justice and gratitude to that God which had so miraculously preserved him, and restored him to his ancient and proper habitation. God expects to be served in the first place. What beasts were clean and what unclean, see Gen 7:2; Lev 11:2, &c.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
20. Noah builded an altarliterally,”a high place”probably a mound of earth, on which asacrifice was offered. There is something exceedingly beautiful andinteresting to know that the first care of this devout patriarch wasto return thanks for the signal instance of mercy and goodness whichhe and his family had experienced.
took of every clean beast . .. fowlFor so unparalleled a deliverance, a specialacknowledgment was due.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord,…. Not an house for himself and his family, but an altar for God; his first and greatest concern being for the glory of God, and not for the temporal good of himself and his: this altar was erected, and devoted to the service of God; it was built according to his will, and by his direction: Noah’s view was to renew the worship of God, preserve and propagate it by his example; and this was done by way of thanksgiving to God for his wonderful preservation of him, and was also propitiatory and typical of Christ: the Jewish writers d say, this was the altar on which Adam sacrificed, when expelled the garden of Eden, and on which Cain and Abel offered; and being demolished by the flood, was rebuilt by Noah, which is not at all probable; it is much more likely what Aben Ezra says, that it was built on one of the mountains of Ararat, and that as Noah took the first opportunity, so he built it in the first place he came to, or at least not far from the place where he came out of the ark:
and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar; the clean beasts were the bullock, the sheep, and goat, and the clean fowl, the turtle and young pigeon, one of each sort at least was taken. The Targum of Jonathan says, he offered four upon the altar: these were typical of Christ; the bullock or heifer might denote his strength, the sheep or lamb his patience and harmlessness, the turtle or dove his meekness; and being burnt offerings, may signify the painful and dolorous sufferings of Christ, when the wrath of God was poured on him like fire.
d Zohar in Gen. fol. 51. 3, 4. Targum Jon. in loc. Pirke Eliezer, c. 23.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The first thing which Noah did, was to build an altar for burnt sacrifice, to thank the Lord for gracious protection, and pray for His mercy in time to come. This altar – , lit., a place for the offering of slain animals, from , like from – is the first altar mentioned in history. The sons of Adam had built no altar for their offerings, because God was still present on the earth in paradise, so that they could turn their offerings and hearts towards that abode. But with the flood God had swept paradise away, withdrawn the place of His presence, and set up His throne in heaven, from which He would henceforth reveal Himself to man (cf. Gen 9:5, Gen 9:7). In future, therefore, the hearts of the pious had to be turned towards heaven, and their offerings and prayers needed to ascend on high if they were to reach the throne of God. To give this direction to their offerings, heights or elevated places were erected, from which they ascended towards heaven in fire. From this the offerings received the name of from , the ascending, not so much because the sacrificial animals ascended or were raised upon the altar, as because they rose from the altar to haven (cf. Jdg 20:40; Jer 48:15; Amo 4:10). Noah took his offerings from every clean beast and every clean fowl – from those animals, therefore, which were destined for man’s food; probably the seventh of every kind, which he had taken into the ark. “ And Jehovah smelled the smell of satisfaction, ” i.e., He graciously accepted the feelings of the offerer which rose to Him in the odour of the sacrificial flame. In the sacrificial flame the essence of the animal was resolved into vapour; so that when man presented a sacrifice in his own stead, his inmost being, his spirit, and his heart ascended to God in the vapour, and the sacrifice brought the feeling of his heart before God. This feeling of gratitude for gracious protection, and of desire for further communications of grace, was well-pleasing to God. He “ said to His heart ‘ (to, or in Himself; i.e., He resolved), “ I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, because the image (i.e., the thought and desire) of man’s heart is evil from his youth up (i.e., from the very time when he begins to act with consciousness).” This hardly seems an appropriate reason. As Luther says: “ Hic inconstantiae videtur Deus accusari posse. Supra puniturus hominem causam consilii dicit, quia figmentum cordis humani malum est. Hic promissurus homini gratiam, quod posthac tali ira uti nolit, eandem causam allegat .” Both Luther and Calvin express the same thought, though without really solving the apparent discrepancy. It was not because the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil that God would not smite any more every living thing, that is to say, would not exterminate it judicially; but because they are evil from his youth up, because evil is innate in man, and for that reason he needs the forbearance of God; and also (and here lies the principal motive for the divine resolution) because in the offering of the righteous Noah, not only were thanks presented for past protection, and entreaty for further care, but the desire of man was expressed, to remain in fellowship with God, and to procure the divine favour. “ All the days of the earth; ” i.e., so long as the earth shall continue, the regular alternation of day and night and of the seasons of the year, so indispensable to the continuance of the human race, would never be interrupted again.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Noah’s Sacrifice. | B. C. 2348. |
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Here is, I. Noah’s thankful acknowledgment of God’s favour to him, in completing the mercy of his deliverance, v. 20. 1. He built an altar. Hitherto he had done nothing without particular instructions and commands from God. He had a particular call into the ark, and another out of it; but, altars and sacrifices being already of divine institution for religious worship, he did not stay for a particular command thus to express his thankfulness. Those that have received mercy from God should be forward in returning thanks, and do it not of constraint, but willingly. God is pleased with free-will offerings, and praises that wait for him. Noah was now turned out into a cold and desolate world, where, one would have thought, his first care would have been to build a house for himself; but, behold, he begins with an altar for God: God, that is the first, must be first served; and he begins well that begins with God. 2. He offered a sacrifice upon his altar, of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl–one, the odd seventh that we read of, Gen 7:2; Gen 7:3. Here observe, (1.) He offered only those that were clean; for it is not enough that we sacrifice, but we must sacrifice that which God appoints, according to the law of sacrifice, and not a corrupt thing. (2.) Though his stock of cattle was so small, and that rescued from ruin at so great an expense of care and pains, yet he did not grudge to give God his dues out of it. He might have said, “Have I but seven sheep to begin the world with, and must one of these seven be killed and burnt for sacrifice? Were it not better to defer it till we have greater plenty?” No, to prove the sincerity of his love and gratitude, he cheerfully gives the seventh to his God, as an acknowledgment that all was his, and owing to him. Serving God with our little is the way to make it more; and we must never think that wasted with which God is honoured. (3.) See here the antiquity of religion: the first thing we find done in the new world was an act of worship, Jer. vi. 16. We are now to express our thankfulness, not by burnt-offerings, but by the sacrifices of praise and the sacrifices of righteousness, by pious devotions and a pious conversation.
II. God’s gracious acceptance of Noah’s thankfulness. It was a settled rule in the patriarchal age: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? Noah was so. For,
1. God was well pleased with the performance, v. 21. He smelt a sweet savour, or, as it is in the Hebrew, a savour of rest, from it. As, when he had made the world at first on the seventh day, he rested and was refreshed, so, now that he had new-made it, in the sacrifice of the seventh he rested. He was well pleased with Noah’s pious zeal, and these hopeful beginnings of the new world, as men are with fragrant and agreeable smells; though his offering was small, it was according to his ability, and God accepted it. Having caused his anger to rest upon the world of sinners, he here caused his love to rest upon this little remnant of believers.
2. Hereupon, he took up a resolution never to drown the world again. Herein he had an eye, not so much to Noah’s sacrifice as to Christ’s sacrifice of himself, which was typified and represented by it, and which was indeed an offering of a sweet-smelling savour, Eph. v. 2. Good security is here given, and that which may be relied upon,
(1.) That this judgment should never be repeated. Noah might think, “To what purpose should the world be repaired, when, in all probability, for the wickedness of it, it will quickly be in like manner ruined again?” “No,” says God, “it never shall.” It was said (ch. vi. 6), It repented the Lord that he had made man; now here he speaks as if it repented him that he had destroyed man: neither means a change of his mind, but both a change of his way. It repented him concerning his servants, Deut. xxxii. 36. Two ways this resolve is expressed:– [1.] I will not again curse the ground, Heb. I will not add to curse the ground any more. God had cursed the ground upon the first entrance of sin (ch. iii. 17), when he drowned it he added to that curse; but now he determines not to add to it any more. [2.] Neither will I again smite any more every living thing; that is, it was determined that whatever ruin God might bring upon particular persons, or families, or countries, he would never again destroy the whole world till the day shall come when time shall be no more. But the reason of this resolve is very surprising, for it seems the same in effect with the reason given for the destruction of the world: Because the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth, ch. vi. 5. But there is this difference–there it is said, The imagination of man’s heart is evil continually, that is, “his actual transgressions continually cry against him;” here it is said, It is evil from his youth or childhood. It is bred in the bone; he brought it into the world with him; he was shapen and conceived in it. Now, one would think it should follow, “Therefore that guilty race shall be wholly extinguished, and I will make a full end.” No, “Therefore I will no more take this severe method; for,” First, “He is rather to be pitied, for it is all the effect of sin dwelling in him; and it is but what might be expected from such a degenerate race: he is called a transgressor from the womb, and therefore it is not strange that he deals so very treacherously,” Isa. xlviii. 8. Thus God remembers that he is flesh, corrupt and sinful, Ps. lxxviii. 39. Secondly, “He will be utterly ruined; for, if he be dealt with according to his deserts, one flood must succeed another till all be destroyed.” See here, 1. That outward judgments, though they may terrify and restrain men, yet cannot of themselves sanctify and renew them; the grace of God must work with those judgments. Man’s nature was as sinful after the deluge as it had been before. 2. That God’s goodness takes occasion from man’s sinfulness to magnify itself the more; his reasons of mercy are all drawn from himself, not from any thing in us.
(2.) That the course of nature should never be discontinued (v. 22): “While the earth remaineth, and man upon it, there shall be summer and winter (not all winter as had been this last year), day and night,” not all night, as probably it was while the rain was descending. Here, [1.] It is plainly intimated that this earth is not to remain always; it, and all the works in it, must shortly be burnt up; and we look for new heavens and a new earth, when all these things must be dissolved. But, [2.] As long as it does remain God’s providence will carefully preserve the regular succession of times and seasons, and cause each to know its place. To this we owe it that the world stands, and the wheel of nature keeps it track. See here how changeable the times are and yet how unchangeable. First, The course of nature always changing. As it is with the times, so it is with the events of time, they are subject to vicissitudes–day and night, summer and winter, counterchanged. In heaven and hell it is not so, but on earth God hath set the one over against the other. Secondly, Yet never changed. It is constant in this inconstancy. These seasons have never ceased, nor shall cease, while the sun continued such a steady measurer of time and the moon such a faithful witness in heaven. This is God’s covenant of the day and of the night, the stability of which is mentioned for the confirming of our faith in the covenant of grace, which is no less inviolable, Jer 33:20; Jer 33:21. We see God’s promises to the creatures made good, and thence may infer that his promises to all believers shall be so.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Verses 20-22:
Noah’s first act after exiting the ark was to build an altar “unto the Lord” or Jehovah. On this altar he offered a burnt sacrifice of every clean beast and fowl. Seven pairs of each clean animal and fowl were taken into the ark before the flood. This left six pairs to replenish the earth and for further sacrifices.
Jehovah “smelled” the odor of the burnt offerings, and He was pleased by this act of faith. He resolved within Himself, “I will not again curse the ground. . .,” literally, “I will not add to curse.” He did not revoke the former curse (Ge 3:17), nor pledge that the curse would not be continued, He promised that never again would there be a flood of waters to destroy life as did the deluge of Noah’s day.
Jehovah recognized the inherent depravity of mankind. He promised not to visit the earth and man with destruction because of this sin nature. Instead, He would extend compassion and forgiveness to fallen man, see 2Pe 3:9, 10.
The second part of this Divine resolution is the faithful, regular continuance of earth’s seasons. This seasonal pattern is to continue so long as the earth stands. This corrects the old misconception which says, “Before the end of time we can’t tell the difference between summer and winter except by the budding of the fig tree.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
20. And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord. As Noah had given many proofs of his obedience, so he now presents an example of gratitude. This passage teaches us that sacrifices were instituted from the beginning for this end, that men should habituate themselves, by such exercises, to celebrate the goodness of God, and to give him thanks. The bare confession of the tongue, yea, even the silent acknowledgment of the heart, might suffice for God; but we know how many stimulants our indolence requires. Therefore, when the holy fathers, formerly, professed their piety towards God by sacrifices, the use of them was by no means superfluous. Besides, it was right that they should always have before their eyes symbols, by which they would be admonished, that they could have no access to God but through a mediator. Now, however, the manifestation of Christ has taken away these ancient shadows. Wherefore, let us use those helps which the Lord has prescribed. (281) Moreover, when I say that sacrifices were made use of, by the holy fathers, to celebrate the benefits of God, I speak only of one kind: for this offering of Noah answers to the peace-offerings, and the first-fruits. But here it may be asked, by what impulse Noah offered a sacrifice to God, seeing he had no command to do so? I answer: although Moses does not expressly declare that God commanded him to do it, yet a certain judgment may be formed from what follows, and even from the whole context, that Noah had rested upon the word of Gods and that, in reliance on the divine command, he had rendered this worship, which he knew, indubitably, should be acceptable to God. We have before said, that one animal of every kind was preserved separately; and have stated for what end it was done. But it was useless to set apart animals for sacrifice, unless God had revealed this design to holy Noah, who was to be the priest to offer up the victims. Besides, Moses says that sacrifices were chosen from among clean animals. But it is certain that Noah did not invent this distinction for himself since it does not depend on human choice. Whence we conclude, that he undertook nothing without divine authority. Also immediately afterwards, Moses subjoins, that the smell of the sacrifice was acceptable to God. This general rule, therefore, is to be observed, that all religious services which are not perfumed with the odour of faith, are of an ill-savor before God. Let us therefore know, that the altar of Noah was founded in the word of God. And the same word was as salt to his sacrifices, that they might not be insipid.
(281) “ Quare adminiculis utamur,” etc. The French translation has it, “ Et pourtant usons,” etc. “And, nevertheless, let us use,” etc. The meaning of the sentence seems to be, that, as the fathers, in obedience to God, used sacrifices, which were afterwards abolished as being of no value, so ought we to avail ourselves of those aids (adminicula) which might seem to be of no importance, had not God enjoined them. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 8:20-22
THE DEVOUT CONDUCT OF A GOOD MAN AFTER A SPECIAL DELIVERANCE FROM EMINENT DANGER
I. That Noah gratefully acknowledged his deliverance as from God. True, Noah had built the ark, and might have taken much credit to himself for so doing. He might have considered this an important element in his preservation from the waters of the deluge. And in contemplation of his own effort he might have lost sight of the Divine providence over him. How many men after a period of especial deliverance from peril, magnify their own forethought, their own skill; they almost entirely forget the aid which heaven has rendered them, and without which they could not have escaped the common doom. Such conduct is most ungrateful, and those who are guilty of it show themselves unworthy of the help they have received. The truly grateful soul will always acknowledge the deliverances of life as from the loving care of God. He only can save men from the deluge occasioned by sin.
II. That Noah devoutly offered to God a Sacrifice in token of his deliverance. Noah built an altar for burnt sacrifice, to thank God for gracious protection and to pray for his mercy to come. This is the first altar mentioned in history. The sons of Adam had built no altar for their offerings, because God was still present on the earth in Paradise, so that they could turn their offerings and hearts toward that abode. But with the flood God had swept Paradise away, withdrawn the place of His presence, and set up His throne in heaven, from which he would henceforth reveal himself to man (Gen. 11:5-7). In future, therefore, the hearts of the pious had to be turned towards heaven, and their offerings and prayers needed to ascend on high if they were to reach the throne of God.
1. This sacrifice was the natural outcome of Noahs gratitude. Noah had been commanded to do everything else connected with his wondrous deliverance; he was commanded to build the ark, and was given the pattern after which he was to construct it; was told who were to occupy it, and when he was to leave it. But no command was issued in reference to the offering of this sacrifice; that was left to the judgment and moral inclination of the patriarch. A truly grateful soul has no need to be told to offer a suitable sacrifice to God upon deliverance from danger.
2. This sacrifice was not precluded by any excuse consequent upon the circumstances of Noah. Noah did not give way to excessive grief at the destruction wrought by the waters, and so delay his devotion till his sorrow was assuaged. He did not excuse himself upon the ground that his resources were scanty, and that therefore he would wait till his wealth was augmented before he would sacrifice to the Lord, and that then he would offer a sacrifice worthy the occasion. Noah offered according to his circumstances and did not allow any duty to take precedence of this. He did not indulge the joy of triumph so as to forget the claims of God upon him. He was a true man, alike in sorrow as in success. He showed himself worthy to be entrusted with the care of the new world.
III. That the sacrifice of Noah was acceptable to God and preventive of further evil to the world.
1. It was fragrant. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour. He was propitiated. He had respect to the offering. It was welcome to him as the outcome of a grateful soul, and as emblematical of a sacrifice in the days to come, which would come up before Him as a sweet smelling savour.
2. It was preventive of calamity. And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done. The more we sacrifice to God the safer we become in our circumstances of life. Sacrifice is wisdom. If God were to destroy the world on account of the sin of man, it would never exhibit leaf or fruit, it would be seldom free from the angry waters of deluge.
3. It was preservative of the natural agencies of the universe. While the earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. There is a close connection between the sacrifices of the good and the fruitful springs of the universe. Devotion of soul is allied to the constancy of nature more than we imagine. The worlds Noahs are allied to the worlds seed time and harvest. What sacrifice have we offered to God for our many deliverances through life?
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
NOAHS OFFERING ON COMING FORTH FROM THE ARK, AND ITS RESULTS
Gen. 8:21-22.
I. The occasion on which this offering was made. It was no ordinary occasion. During the sixteen hundred and fifty years in which the world had existed, there had been no such manifestation of the Divine character as this family had seen.
1. On this occasion how impressively would Noah and his family be reminded of the Divine forbearance which had been displayed to the whole world. There had been since the Fall a gradual unfolding of the scheme of mercy in the institution of sacrifice, the preaching of the patriarchs, and the teaching of the Spirit.
2. With what solemn awe would Noah and his family now view the earth bearing on every part of its surface the marks of recent vengeance. When they entered the ark the earth was smiling with plenty and thickly populated; now all are gone. They are the sole remnant of the human population.
3. With what adoring and grateful feeling would Noah and his family view their own preservation on this occasion. Singled out by Divine mercy, preserved by Divine power, directed by Divine wisdom, they had built the ark in which they had been preserved, while all around was destroyed.
II. In its Nature.
1. An expression of gratitude. It was his first act. He stayed not to build a habitation for himself. His stock was small, yet he took the best of his flock.
2. An acknowledgment of dependence. Noah remembered his recent preservation, and in his offering expressed his confidence that He who had preserved him under such circumstances would still continue to provide for his safety.
3. The offering of Noah was a lively exhibition of his faith in the future atonement as well as an appropriate testimony that his recent preservation was owing to the efficacy of that atonement.
III. In its results.
1. The offering was accepted.
2. The promise which was given.
3. The covenant which was made [Sketches of Sermons by Wesleyan Ministers].
Obedience and sacrifice are sweetly set together by God, and kept together by saints.
The first work due to Gods salvation is the setting up of His worship in truth.
The saints in faith built altars and brought sacrifices to God upon His word.
God would have but one altar at a time in the place which he should choose.
Altar and sacrifice worship is most requisite for sinners to come to God. Therefore Christ is both for propitiation.
1. A believing priest.
2. A sanctified altar.
3. A clean sacrifice.
4. A type of Christ.
The sacrifice which God accepts must ascend and come up to Him, to be available.
The sacrifice which brings peace to man, giveth glory to God.
Gen. 8:22. God pleased in Christ is resolved in heart, and promises to do good unto His people.
The sons of Adam are from birth evil in their principles to high provocations.
Grace in Gods covenant glories over sin and will overcome it.
Sinners may be exempt from one kind of punishment, though not from all.
The seasons:
1. Secured by covenant.
2. While the earth remains.
3. Varied in fertility.
ILLUSTRATIONS
BY THE
REV. WM. ADAMSON
Acceptance! Gen. 8:21. As Abel came with the appointed lamb, and was accepted; so Noah came with his sacrifice, and his service was grateful incense. Both offerings teach that there is a virtue in the death of Christ so precious and so mighty that it has resistless power with God. To use the expressive language of Law, the curtains of Gods pavilion are here thrown back, and each attribute appears rejoicing in redemption. The Spirit says that the Lord smelled a sweet savourthat clouds of prevailing odours pierced the skies. Its flame was a light to pious pilgrims in patriarchal times, and after the lapse of centuries it contributes this diamond-radiance to us; when as of old
The smoke of sacrifice arose, and God
Smelld a sweet savour of obedient faith.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4. Noahs Altar (Gen. 8:20-22).
20 And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake, for that the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth, neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
(1) These few verses are further evidence that Sacrifice had been a long-established Divine institution, dating indeed as the Bible dates it, from the very fountainhead of the race and the beginning of true religion (Gen. 4:1-8).
(2) Note that Noahs first act on coming forth from the Ark was to worship God, and to do so in the manner and by the means which God had long before ordained. The means were three, as noted heretofore: the altar, the sacrifice, and the priesthood. From the beginning these have been the divinely established elements of true religion. The altar was a raised structure or mound of natural earth and stones: not hewn stones, because by Divine ordination to lift up a tool on it was to pollute it (Exo. 20:24-26). In this case, as throughout the Patriarchal Dispensation, Noah acted as priest (mediator) for his entire household; for his sacrifice he took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. It is important to note, in this connection, that Noah worshiped God. Had he been a superstitious person, he would have prostrated himself before the Ark which was visible; instead he built his altar unto Jehovah the invisible but living and true God. Noah walked by faith: and faith knows that the things which are seen are temporal, that only the things which are not seen are eternal (Heb. 11:2, 2Co. 4:18). Note that these were burnt-offerings, that is, things that ascend, in allusion to the ascent of the smoke of such offerings to heaven (cf. Jdg. 20:40, Jer. 48:15, Amo. 4:10).
(3) Note the Divine Soliloquy, (a) The circumstances of Noahs offering were of Divine appointment, as evidenced by the fact that his service was accepted. All religious services which are not perfumed with the odor of faith are of an ill savor before God (Calvin). Jehovah smelled the sweet savor. Whitelaw (PCG, 132): The meaning is that the sacrifice of the patriarch was as acceptable to God as refreshing odors are to the senses of a man; and that which rendered it acceptable was (1) the feeling from which it sprang, whether gratitude or obedience; (2) the truths which it expressedit was tantamount to an acknowledgment of personal guilt, a devout recognition of the Divine mercy, an explicit declaration that he had been saved or could only be saved through the offering up of the life of another, and a cheerful consecration of his redeemed life to God; and (3) the great sacrifice of which it was a type, This Great Sacrifice was, of course, the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the sin of the world (Joh. 1:29, Eph. 5:2). (b) The Divine soliloquy which follows (Gen. 8:21-22) is rich in overtones. Bowie (IBG, 547548): Few sentences in Genesis reflect thought as naive as this. God is pleased with the smoke of sacrifice, and he begins to feel more warmly disposed. Like de Lawd in The Green Pastures, he resigns himself to recognize that the heart of man is just about hopeless. It has been evil from his youth. So the only thing to do was to accept the situation and not put any dependence upon the possibility of correcting matters by another flood. There is something to the credit of humanity in the person of Noah, and that perhaps is all God can expect. As theology, that is childlike; yet there is a strange instinctive wisdom in it, just as there is sometimes in the pictures that children draw. There is the recognition that human sin is incredibly stubborn, that only a patient God could put up with it, that in spite of everything he will not visit upon us our deserts. The vision of what Gods infinite compassion actually went out to do in Christ is a long way off, but even so the window of instinctive trust is open in that direction. Again, the sentiment is strongly anthropopathic, expressive, it would seem, of the Divine regret at so calamitous a judgment on man as the Deluge was, yet one that had to be, in the interst of absolute Justice.
REVIEW QUESTIONS
See Gen. 9:28-29.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(20) Noah builded an altar unto the Lord (Jehovah).The account of this sacrificial act is said to have been an interpolation of the Jehovist. Really it forms an integral portion of the numerous traditions of the flood. Thus in the Chaldean Genesis, after the sending forth of a dove, a swallow, and a raven, we read (p. 280):
I sent them forth to the four winds; I sacrificed a sacrifice;
I built an altar on the peak of the mountain.
This extreme antiquity of sections ascribed to the Jehovist, and supposed to be an after-thought, is seriously detrimental to the whole theory.
One result of the flood was to sweep away all traces of the earthly paradise and of the subsequent abode of Adam; and it is probable also that Noah was removed far away from his previous home by the floating of the ark. Thus to him and his family it was a new earth, with no holy places, no spots hallowed by the past history of man. He therefore determines to consecrate the earth to Jehovah, who had been the object of the worship of his family since the days of Enos, and therefore builds an altar, the first mentioned in the Bible. By so doing he provided for future generations a central spot and sanctuary, round which their religious ideas would group themselves. The animals offered were probably the seventh of all clean kinds (see Note on Gen. 7:2). With Noahs burnt offerings we must not connect any of the later Levitical ideas. Apparently it was a simple thank-offering, the dominant thought of which was the hallowing mans future life by commencing it with worship. It thus contained within it the presage that a better state of things had now begun. Subsequently the thank-offering became a feast, at which the offerer and his family partook of the victim as Jehovahs guests; and as God during this sacrifice gave Noah permission to eat flesh (Gen. 9:3), it is probable that such was the case now, and that the eating of flesh was inaugurated in this solemn way. We have, however, previously seen reason to believe that the flesh of animals had occasionally been eaten before, though not as an ordinary article of diet.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
20. Noah builded an altar This is the first altar mentioned in history, although it is generally supposed that Abel built one for his acceptable offering . It is possible that the antediluvian saints brought their gifts to the gate of Eden, where God had “tabernacled the cherubim . ” Chap . 3:24 . Whether this were so or not, all traces of that paradise were obliterated by the deluge, so that even the geographical marks of the antediluvian record cannot now be identified . , the Hebrew for altar, is from , to slay, a place where victims were slain in confession of the desert of sin . Noah, the priest of the human race, type of the Great High Priest who offered himself without spot unto God, comes forth upon the baptized earth, and his first act is to make this solemn confession of sin in behalf of the rescued remnant of humanity . This man, who alone was perfect in his generations, and who walked with God, built the first altar, and sprinkled it with the blood of every clean bird and beast as a confession of sin . Sacrifice is symbolic in its very essence . The slain victim represents the worshipper, its death being typical of the desert of sin; the consumed offering going up from the earth in smoke typifies the prayer in which the man sends his inmost being up to God; while at the same time all these sacrifices, divinely appointed, prepared man to understand God’s great Sacrifice, wherein Christ offered himself up unto God, that He might be just and the justifier of all that come unto him by faith . Noah did not see Calvary, but God saw it; and we now see the smoke from this first historic altar, together with that from the tabernacle and the temple, blending in the cloud on the gospel mercy-seat .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Noah Offers a Sacrifice to Yahweh and Receives His Personal Covenant ( Gen 8:20-22 )
Now we are approaching the covenants around which the whole account is based and was the reason why it was preserved so assiduously. The first is a personal covenant made in response to Noah’s act of worship. And yet because he encapsulates the whole human race, the covenant is also with them. But it is represented as a personal thought of Yahweh, not as a fiat from God as Creator. It is something that will primarily benefit man not the whole of creation, and is linked with man’s response in worship.
Gen 8:20
‘And Noah built an altar to Yahweh and took of every clean animal and every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.’
Now we see clearly why it was necessary for there to be more than two of every clean animal and bird. It gives Noah the opportunity to present to God his immediate gratitude and worship. It is quite possible that the family partook of at least some of the offerings. We must not read into these sacrifices the Mosaic restrictions. It was probably seen as including an element of sin offering as well as of dedication and thanksgiving.
Gen 8:21
‘And Yahweh smelt the sweet savour, and Yahweh said in his heart, “I will not again curse the ground any more because of what man does, because the thoughts in man’s heart are evil from his youth, nor will I again smite any more every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter and day and night shall not cease”.’
“Yahweh smelt the sweet savour”. This is an anthropomorphism indicating God’s acceptance of the worship. It is acceptable to Him and pleases Him as a beautiful perfume would be acceptable to man, for it signifies to Him an obedient and responsive faith.
“Yahweh said in his heart”. This is not suggesting its secrecy but rather expressing the personal nature of the covenant, and distinguishing it from the major covenant to follow. This is Yahweh’s personal response to Noah’s faith and trust. It was clearly communicated to Noah as we have it in the account.
What God is promising is that He will no more take direct action against man because of sin. He is not reversing the curse, for the ground will still produce thorns and thistles. But He will not take this any further. Nor will He ever again wreak such devastation as He has done. He accepts that man is sinful from his youth, and that it is now a natural part of man.
Notice that He speaks of ‘the thoughts in man’s heart’. It is not just man’s actions that are important to God, but primarily how he thinks. Many a good action disguises an evil thought. It is man who looks at the outward appearance, but Gods looks at the heart. There is also a contrast here between God’s heart and man’s heart. God’s heart is merciful in spite of man’s evil heart, for He recognises man’s weakness.
“While the earth remains —–” In some ways this was the most important covenant as far as the listeners were concerned in their day to day lives, (although not as far as man was concerned in the first light of what had happened). The promise of the perpetuating of the seasons was the guarantee of man’s food supply and of the certainties of life, and it is seen as a direct response to man’s submission and act of worship. So the relating of the account at sacred feasts was not only the celebration of the fact that no calamity would again destroy the world, it was also a celebration of the fact of God’s covenant that the sources of production would be maintained and continue, and that life would go on, on a steady course.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Promise of God
v. 20. And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. v. 21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living as I have done. v. 22. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 8:20. Noah builded an altar, &c. Offerings and sacrifices necessarily imply the whole apparatus required; Cain and Abel could not have sacrificed without an altar. But that original one being destroyed, Noah erected a new one, on which to offer his sacrifice of clean beasts and clean birds. This seems to prove, as plainly as possible, the use of sacrifice before the deluge; as we read of no new revelation respecting that matter to Noah, and as it is plain his offerings were acceptable to God from the following verse.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FOURTH PART
THE GENESIS OF THE NEW, WORLD-HISTORICAL, HUMAN RACE; OF THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE FORM OF SIN THAT NOW COMES IN, AND OF THE NEW FORM OF PIETY; OF THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE BLESSING OF SHEM (CULTUS, THEOCRACY) AND THE BLESSING OF JAPHETH (CULTURE, HUMANISM); OF TEE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE DISPERSION OF THE NATIONS, AND THE BABYLONIAN COMBINING OF THE NATIONS; BETWEEN THE BABYLONIAN DISPERSION, OR THE MYTHICAL HEATHENISM, AND THE INDIVIDUAL SYMBOLIC FAITH IN GOD OF THE PATRIARCHS, THE FIRST TYPICAL COVENANT. Gen 8:20 to Gen 11:32
FIRST SECTION
The First Typical Covenant. The Primitive Precepts (Noachian Laws). The Symbol of the Rainbow
Gen 8:20 to Gen 9:17
20And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every20 clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21And the Lord smelled a sweet savour,21 and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake: for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth [here, excusing]; neither will I again smite any more everything living as I have done. 22While the earth remaineth [all the days of the earth] seedtime and harvest [the order of nature], and cold and heat, and summer and winter,22 and day and night, shall not cease.
Gen 9:1 And God [Elohim] blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green 4herb have I given you all things. But flesh which is the life thereof [its soul, its animation], which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5And surely your blood of your lives1 [of each single life] will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it [take vengeance for it], and at the hand of man; at the hand of every mans brother will I require the life of Man 1:6 Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by Man 1:2 shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he Man 1:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth 8abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. And God [Elohim] spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying [], 9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth [that shall proceed from them in the future]. 11And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off anymore by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 12And God [Elohim] said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13I do set my bow3 in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:4 15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more 16become a flood to destroy all flesh. And my bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every 17living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God [Elohim] said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Gen 8:20-22. The offering of Noah and the acceptance and promise of Jehovah. The offering of Noah is not, as has been maintained, to be referred back from the later time of the law, to the primitive history. It reflects itself, moreover, in the mythological stories of the flood (Delitzsch, p. 268). An altar to the Lord. The altar is called , place of slaying the victim, from , as from . That the sons of Adam offered without an altar is a mere supposition. According to Keil there was no need of an altar, because God was still present in paradise to men. In the judgment of the flood was paradise destroyed; the place of his presence was withdrawn, and he had taken his throne in the heaven, that from thence, hereafter he might reveal himself to men. (Comp. Gen 2:5; Gen 2:7). Towards heaven must now the hearts of the pious lift up themselves; their offerings and their prayers must go up on high, if they would reach Gods throne. In order to give the offerings this upward direction, elevated places were fixed upon, from which they might ascend heavenwards in fire. Hence the offerings derived their name of , from , the ascending, not so much because the animal offered was laid upon the altar, or made to ascend the altar, but rather because of the ascending (of the flame and smoke) from the altar towards heaven. (Comp. Jdg 20:40; Jer 48:15; Amo 4:10). In like manner Delitzsch in relation to Psa 29:10; (according to Hofmann: Prophecy and Fulfilment, pp. 80, 88). If by this is meant that the religious consciousness, which once received God as present in paradise, must now, through its darkness by sin, revere him as the Holy One, far off, dwelling on high, and only occasionally revealing himself from heaven, there would be nothing to say against it; but if it is meant as a literal transfer of the place of the divine dwelling and of the divine throne, it becomes a mythologizing darkening of the divine idea (see Psalms 139). Christ was greater than the paradisaical Adam; notwithstanding, in prayer, he lifted up his eyes to heaven (Joh 11:41); and already is it intimated, Gen 1:1, that from the beginning, the heaven, as the symbolical sign of Gods exceeding highness, had precedence of the earth. That, however, the word may have some relation, at least, to the ascendency of the victim upon the altar is shown by the expression in the Hiphil. The altar was erected to Jehovah, whose worship had already, at an earlier period, commenced (Gen 4:4). Everywhere when Elohim had revealed himself in his first announcements, and had thus given assurance of himself as the trusted and the constant, there is Jehovah, the God amen, in ever fuller distinctness. As Jehovah must he especially appear to the saved Noah, as the one to whom he had fulfilled his word of promise in the wonderful relation he bore to him.Of every clean beast.According to Rosenmuller and others, we must regard this as referring to the five kinds of offerings under the law, namely, bullock, sheep, goats, doves, turtle doves. This, however, is doing violence to the text; there appears rather to have been appointed for offering the seventh surplus example which he had taken, over and above the three pairs, in each case, of clean beasts.And offered it as a burnt offering.We are not to think here of the classification of offerings as determined in the levitical law. The burnt offering forms the middle point, and the root of the different offerings (comp. Gen 22:13); and the undivided unity is here to be kept in view. There is, at all events, contained here the idea of the thank offering, although there is nothing said of any participation, or eating, of the victim offered. The extreme left side of the offering here, as an offering for sin and guilt, was the Herem or pollution of the carcases exposed in the flood (like the lamb of the sacrifice of Moses as compared with the slain first-born of the Egyptians); the extreme right side lay in that consecrated partaking of flesh by Noah which now commenced.And the Lord (Jehovah) smelled a sweet savor.The savor of satisfaction. An anthropomorphic expression for the satisfied acceptance of the offering presented, as a true offering of the spirit of the one presenting it.5And said in his heart.Not merely he said to himself or he thought with himself; it means rather, he took counsel with, his heart and executed a purpose proceeding from, the emotion of his divine love.I will not again curse.In words had he done this, Gen 3:17, but actually and in a higher measure, in the decree of destruction Gen 6:7; Gen 6:13. With the last, therefore, is the first curse retracted, in as far as the first preliminary lustration of the earth is admitted to be a baptism of the earth. According to Knobel, the pleasing fragrance of the offering is not the moving ground, but merely the occasion for this gracious resolve, But what does the occasion mean here? In so far as the saving grace of God was the first moving ground for Noahs thank offering, was this latter also a second moving ground (symbolically, causa meritoria) for the purpose of God as afterwards determined.For the imaginations of mans heart.The ground here given for Gods forbearance and compassion seems remarkable. Calvin: Hic inconstanti videtur deus accusari posse. Supra puniturus hominem, causam consilii dicit, quia figmentum cordis humani malum est. Hic promissurus homini gratiam, quod posthac tali ira uti nolit, eandem causam allegat. Between this passage, however, and the one Gen 6:6, there is a twofold difference. In the latter there precedes the sentence: Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth; in connection with this corruption of actual sin, the evil imagining of the human heart itself, is reckoned for evil, as being its fountain. Here, however, the burnt offering of Noah goes before. In connection with tills sacrificial service, expressing the feeling of guilt and the want of forgiveness, the evil imagination of the human heart appears as a sufferer of temptation. The innate sinfulness is not disease merely, but as it stands in organic connection with the actual sin, is also guilt. It is, however, disease too; and precisely in its connection with the disposition for pardon, and the better desire of man, is it regarded as disease by God, and as being, therefore, an object of his compassion. Moreover it is called here simply , the involuntary unconscious sense and imagination, but there (Gen 6:6), it was the imagination of the thoughts (the purposes) of his heart, and, therefore, a matter of consciousness; here it is wickedness from his youth up, there, it is only wickedness, nothing else but wickedness, wickedness throughout and continually. In the effect of the flood, and in the light of the sacrificial offering, which Noah offers not only in his own name, but in that of his family and race, the guilt of the innate sinfulness of the human race appears typically weakened in the same way as in the evangelical church-doctrine, the condemnation of hereditary sin is taken away by baptism, of which the flood is a type.6 Knobel lays stress on the fact that it is said from his youth up, not from his mothers womb; but the word evidently means that just as soon as the heart comes to its peculiar imagining, or the sensual imagining that is appropriate to it, then immediately appears the innate sinfulness.Whilst the earth remaineth.The three first pairs of words do not denote, as the Jewish interpreters (see Raschi) explain it, six times of the year reckoned by two months each (a division found in the Vedas and the Avesta), but they divide the year into two halves each, as the old Greeks did into and (in Hesiod it is and ), namely the summer (including the autumn), beginning with the early rising of the Pleiades, and the winter (including the spring, see Job 29:4) beginning with the early setting (Ideler, Chron. 1, p. 241). Delitzsch. And yet the antitheses are not tautological. Seed-time and harvest denote the year according to its most obvious significance for man. Cold and heat are according to the equilibrium of the year, lying at the ground of seed-time and harvest, and conditioned by the regular change of temperature. Summer and winter present the constant appearance of this change, the order of which is imaged in the small and ordinary changes of day and night that belong to the general course of nature. Delitzsch supposes that this new course of nature, consisting in interchanges of temperature, is opposed to a serene or uninterrupted warmth that prevailed before the flood. That the earth in the primitive period had an even temperature may be regarded as very probable; but not that the flood, in this respect, made any sudden turning point, although such an epoch in the earths life must, at the same time, denote the beginning of a change. At all events, the new order of nature is not denoted as a mere imperfect earth, for this purified earth will God never again cover with a flood. Delitzsch admirably remarks: they are Gods thoughts of peace which he gives to Noahs inner perception as an answer to his offering; as even now every one who prays in faith gets from the heart of God an inward perception that his prayer is answered. The doubled form, , has as in Isa 54:9, the power of an oath. As an establishment of the new order of nature, this promise corresponds to the creative words Genesis 1.
2. The blessing of God on the new humanity, its dominion, its freedom and its laws (Gen 9:1-7). The benediction of Noah and his sons, Gen 9:1, corresponds to the blessing of Adam and Eve, Gen 1:28. In like manner, the grant of dominion over the animal world corresponds to the appointment there expressed. The distinct license here given for the slaying of the beasts corresponds to Gen 1:29, and Gen 2:16. The prohibition of eating blood corresponds to the prohibition of the tree of knowledge. Finally, the command against murder has relation, without doubt, to the murder committed by Cain (Genesis 4). Delitzsch: After that the general relations of nature, in view of such a ruin as has happened in the flood, are made secure by promise, there are given to men new physical, ethical, and legal foundations.And the fear of you.Your fear, as the effect, . The exciting of fear and terror are to be the means of mans dominion over the animals. Delitzsch remarks: It is because the original harmony that once existed between man and nature has been taken away by the fall and its consequences. According to the will of God, man is still the lord of nature, but of nature now as an unwilling servant, to be restrained by effort, to be subjugated by force. Not throughout, however, is nature thus antagonistic to man; it is not the case with a portion of the animal world, namely, the domestic animals. It is true, there has come in a breach of the original harmony, but it is not now for the first time, and the most peculiar striving of the creature is against its doom of perishability (Rom 8:20). Moreover, it is certainly the case, that, the influence of the fear of man upon the animals is fundamentally a normal paradisaical relation. But a severer intensity of this is indicated by the word dread. Knobel explains it from the fact, that hence-forth the animal is threatened in its life, and is now exposed to be slain. Since the loss of the harmonic relation between man and the animals (in which the human majesty had a magical power over the beast), the contrast between the tame and the wild, between the friendly innocence and the hostile dread of the wilder species, had increased more and more, unto the time of the flood. Now is it formally and legally presented in the language we are considering. Man is henceforth legally authorized to exercise a forcible dominion over the beasts, since he can no longer rule them through the sympathy of a spiritual power. Also the eating of flesh, which had doubtless existed before, is now formally legalized; by which fact it is, at the same time, commended. A limitation of the pure kinds is not yet expressed. When, however, there is added, by way of appendix, all that liveth (that is, is alive), the dead carcase, or that which hath died of itself, is excluded, and with it all that is offensive generally. There is, however, a distinct restriction upon this flesh-eating, in the prohibition of the blood: But flesh with the life thereof.Delitzsch explains it as meaning, that there was forbidden the eating of the flesh when the animal was yet alive, unslain, and whose blood had not been poured out,namely, pieces cut out, according to a cruel custom of antiquity, and still existing in Abyssynia. Accordingly there was forbidden, generally, the eating of flesh in which the blood still remained. It is, however, more to the purpose to explain this text according to Lev 17:11; Lev 17:14, than by the savage practices of a later barbarous heathenism, or by Rabbinical tradition. With its life, therefore, means with its soul, or animating principle, and this is explained by its blood, according to the passage cited (Deu 12:23); since the blood is the basis, the element of the nerve-life, and in this sense, the soul. The blood is the fluid-nerve, the nerve is the constructed blood. The prohibition of blood-eating, the first of the so-called Noachian commands (see below), is, indeed, connected with the moral reprobation of cruelty to animals, as it may proceed to the mutilation of the living; it is, therefore, also connected with the avoidance of raw flesh ( , or living flesh, 1Sa 2:15. Knobel). The blood is regarded as the seat of the soul, or the life, and is even denoted as , or the soul itself (Lev 1:5), as the anima purpurea of Virgil, n. ix. 348; even as here is explained by the apposition . But the life belongs to God, the Lord of all life, and must, therefore, be brought to him, upon his altar (Deu 12:27), and not be consumed by man. Knobel. This is, therefore, the second idea in the prohibition of the blood. As life, must the life of the beast go back to God its creator; or, as life in the victim offered in sacrifice, it must become a symbol that the soul of man belongs to God, though man may partake of the animal materiality, that is, the flesh. Still stronger is the restriction that follows: And surely your blood of your lives.The soul of the beast, in the blood of the beast, is to be avoided, and the soul of man, in the blood of man, is not to be violated. Delitzsch. At the ground of this contrast, however, lies the more general one, that the slaying of the beast is allowed whilst the slaying of man is forbidden.Will I require; that is, the corresponding, proportionate expiation or punishment will I impose upon the slayer. The expression , Knobel explains as meaning for your souls, for the best of your life (comp. Lev 26:45; Deu 4:15; Job 13:7). According to Delitzsch and Keil expresses the regard had for the individual. And this appears to be near the truth. The blood of man is individually reckoned and valued, according to the individual souls.At the hand of every beast.The more particular legal regulation is found in Exo 21:28. Here, then, is first given a legal ground for the pursuit and destruction of human murderous and hurtful beasts. Still there is expressed, moreover, the slaying of the single beast that hath killed a man. In the enactments of Solon and Draco, and even in Plato, there is a similar provision. Delitzsch.And at the hand of man. , brother man, that is, kinsman; comp. Gen 13:5; so, , a priest-man, etc. By the words is not to be understood the next of kin to the murdered man, whose duty it was to execute the blood-vengeance (Von Bohlen, Tuch, Baumgarten), as the one from whom God required the blood that was shed, but the murderer himself. In order to indicate the unnaturalness of murder, and its deep desert of penalty, God denotes him (the murderer) as in a special sense the brother of the murdered. Knobel. Besides this, moreover, there is formed from the expression every man (Delitzsch, Keil). Every man, brother man.The life of man.Man is emphasized. Therefore follows, emphatically, the formula: Whosoever sheddeth mans blood, and at the close again there is once more man () prominently presented.By man shall his blood be shed: namely, by the next of kin to the murdered, whose right and duty both it was to pursue the murderer, and to slay him. He is called , the demander of the blood, or the blood-avenger. The Hebrew law imposed the penalty of death upon the homicide (Exo 21:12; Lev 24:17), which the blood avenger carried out (Num 35:19; Num 35:21); to him was the murderer delivered up by the congregation to be put to death (Deu 19:12). Among the old Hebrews, the blood-vengeance was the usual mode of punishing murder, and was also practised by many other nations. Delitzsch and Keil dispute the relation of this passage to the blood-vengeance. It is not to be misapprehended, 1. that here, in a wider sense, humanity itself, seeing it is always next of kin to the murdered, is appointed to be the avenger; and 2. that the appointment extends beyond the blood-vengeance, and becomes the root of the magisterial right of punishment. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that in the patriarchal relations of the olden time it was a fundamental principle that the next of kin were not only justified in the execution of the law of blood, but on account of the want of a legal tribunal, were under obligation to perform the office. This primitive, divinely-sanctioned custom, became, in its ideal and theocratic direction, the law of punishment as magisterially regulated in the Mosaic institutions (but which still kept in mind the blood-vengeance), whereas, in the direction of crude heathenism, which avenged the murder even upon the relations of the murderer, it became itself a murderous impulse. Delitzsch remarks, that God has now laid in the hands of men the penal force that belonged to him alone, because he has withdrawn his visible presence from the earth,according to the view, before cited, of his transfer of the divine throne to the heavens.For in the image of God made he man.This is the reason for the command against murder. In man there is assailed the image of God, the personality, that which constitutes the very aim of his existence, although the image itself, as such, is inviolable. In murder the crime is against the spirit, in which the divine kinsmanship reveals itself, and so is it a crime against the very appearing of God in the world in its most universal form, or as a prelude to that murder which was committed against the perfect form of man (or image of God in man), Zec 12:10; Joh 3:10; Joh 3:15).But be ye fruitful.The contrast to the preceding. The value of human life forbids its being wasted, and commands its orderly increase.Bring forth abundantly in the earthIn the spreading of men over, the earth, and out of its supplies of food (by which, as it were, the life of the earth is transformed into the life of man) are found the conditions for the multiplication of the human race. Thus regarded, there is only an apparent tautology in the verse, not an actual one.
3. Gen 9:8-17. The covenant of God with Noah, with his race, and with the whole earth.To Noah and to his sons with him.Solemn covenanting form. The sons are addressed together with Noah; for the covenant avails expressly for the whole human race.And I, behold I establish.The words, and I, () form a contrast to the claims of God on the new humanity as an introduction to the promise. According to Knobel, God had established no covenant with the antediluvians. Not, indeed, in the literal expressions here employed; since it was after men had had the experience of a destroying judgment. According to the same (Knobel), the Jehovist, in Gen 8:21 presented the matter in a way different from that of the Elohist here. Clearly, however, does the offering of Noah there mentioned, furnish the occasion for the entire transaction that follows in this place. The making of a covenant with Noah is already introduced, and announced Gen 6:13; it stands in a development conditioned on the preservation of Noahs faith, just as a similar development is still more evident in the life of Abraham (see Jam 2:20-23). Keil remarks that is not equivalent to , that is, it does not denote the formal concluding, but the establishing, confirming, of a covenant,in other words, the realization of the covenanting promise (comp. Genesis 22 with Genesis 17, 15). Delitzsch: There begins now the era of the divine (Rom 3:26) of which Paul preached in Lystria (Act 14:15). In its most special sense, this era begins with the origin of heathenism, that is, from the Babylonian dispersion. With a right fulness is the animal world also included in this covenant, for it is elohistic,universalistic; it keeps wholly predominant the characteristic of compassion for the creaturely life upon the earth, although man forms its ethical middle point, with which the animal world and the kosmos are connected. The covenant with the beasts subsists not for itself, and, in respect to its nature, is only to be taken symbolically.Shall not be cut off any more.This is the divine covenant promiseno new destruction,no end of the world again produced by a flood.My bow in the cloud, it shall be for a token.In every divine covenant there is a divine sign of the covenant; in this covenant it is said: my bow do I set. According to Knobel the rainbow is called Gods bow, because it belongs to the heaven, Gods dwelling place. It is a more correct interpretation to say, it is because God has made it to appear in the heaven, as the sign of his covenant. According to the same, the author of the account must have entertained the supposition that there had never been a rainbow before the time of the flood. Delitzsch is of the same opinion.7 It is, indeed, a phenomenon of refraction, which may be supposed of a fall of water, and sometimes, also, of a dew-distilling mist. But the far visible and overarching rainbow supposes the rain-cloud as its natural conditioning cause. We have already remarked that from the appointment of the rainbow, as the sign of the covenant, it by no means follows that it had not before existed as a phenomenon of nature (Genesis 2). The starry night, too, is made the sign of a promise for Abraham (Genesis 15). Keil is not willing to infer that hitherto it had not rained, but only presents the conjecture that at an earlier period the constitution of the atmosphere may have been different.And I will look upon it that I may remember.An anthropomorphising form of expression, but which like every other expression of the kind, ever gives us the tenor of the divine thought in a symbolical human form. Here it is the expression of the self-obligating, or of the conscious covenant truthfulness, as manifested in the constant sign. In his presence, too, have they power and most essential significance. (Von Gerlach).
[Note on the Appointment of the Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant.In regard to this it may be well to give the views of some of the older Jewish commentators, if for no other purpose, to show that what is really the most easy and the most natural interpretation comes from no outside pressure of science, but is fairly deducible from the very letter of the passage. Thus reasons Maimonides respecting it: For the words are in past time, , my bow have I set (or did set) in the cloud, not, I am now setting, or about to set, which would be expressed by , according as he had said just before, , the covenant which I am now establishing. Moreover the form of the word my bow, shows that there was something to him so called from the beginning. And so the Scripture must be interpreted: the bow which I put () in the cloud in the day of creation, shall be, from this day, and henceforth, for a sign of the covenant between me and you, so that every time that it appears, I will look upon it and remember my covenant of peace. If it is asked then, what is meant by the bows being a sign, I answer that it is like what is said Gen 31:48, in the covenant between Jacob and Laban, , lo, this heap is a witness, etc., or Gen 31:52, , and this pillar shall be a witness, etc. And so also Gen 21:30, , seven lambs shalt thou take from my hand, for a witness. In like manner everything that appears as thus put before two, to cause them to remember something promised or covenanted, is called . And so of the circumcision; God says, it shall be a sign of the covenant, , between me and you. Thus the bow that is now visible, and the bow that was in nature () from the beginning, or from of old () are one in this, that the sign which is in them is one. He then proceeds to say that there are other and mystic interpretations made by some of the Rabbins, but this great critic is satisfied with the one that he has given. Aben Ezra says that the most celebrated of the Jewish Rabbins held the same opinion as Maimonides, namely, that the rainbow was in nature from the beginning, though he himself seems to dissent.
And I will look upon it to remember the , the covenant of eternity. Let us not be troubled about the anthropopathism, but receive the precious thought in all its inexpressible tenderness. Lange most beautifully characterizes such mutual remembrance as eye meeting eye. We all know that Gods memory takes in the total universe of space at every moment of time: but there are some things which he remembers as standing out from the great totality. He remembers the act of faith, and the sign of faith, as he remembers no other human act, no other finite phenomenon. May we not believe that there is the same mutual remembrance in the Eucharist? The remember me implies I will remember thee. The eye of the Redeemer looking into the eye of the believer, or both meeting in the same memorial: this is certainly a real presence, whatever else there may be of depth and mystery in that most fundamental Christian ritethe evangelical , or sign of the everlasting covenant.
The Hebrew is not used of miraculous signs, properly, given as proofs of mission or doctrine. It is not a counteraction of natural law, or the bringing a new thing into nature. Any fixed object may be used for a sign, and here the very covenant itself, or a most important part of it, being the stability of nature, there is a most striking consistency in the fact that the sign of such covenant is taken from nature itself. The rainbow, ever appearing in the sunshine after rain, is the very symbol of constancy. It is selected from all others, not only for its splendor and beauty, but for the regularity with which it cheers us, when we look out for it after the storm. Noah needed no witness of the supernatural. The great in nature, in that early age when all was wonderful, was regarded as manifesting God equally with the supernatural. Besides, in the flood itself there was a sufficient witness to the extraordinary. There was wanted, then, not a miracle strictly as an attestation of a message, or as a sign of belief, like the miracles in the New Testament (when there was a necessity for breaking up the lethargy of naturalism), but a vivid memorial for the conservation rather than the creation of faith. The Hebrew word for miracle is more properly , though it may be used simply for prodigy, like the Greek , in distinction from the New Testament , which is properly a proof or attestation of a miraculous kind. simply means anything wonderful, whether in nature or not. Superstition converts such appearances into portents, or signs of something impending, but in the Bible Gods people are expressly told not to be dismayed at the signs of the heavens as the heathen are. Jer 10:1. The word there used is this same in the plural, but accommodated to the heathen perversion. To the believing Israelites the signs of the heavens, even though strange and unusual, were to be regarded as tokens of their covenant God above nature yet ruling in nature, and ever regulating the order of its phenomena. There is a passage sometimes quoted from Homer, Il. xi. 27, Genesis 28 :
.
Like the rainbows which Zeus fixed in the cloud a sign to men of many tongues. But there has the sense of prodigy, or it may denote a wonderful and beautiful object. We cannot, therefore, certainly infer from this any traditional recognition of the great sign-appointing in Genesis. So Plato quotes from Hesiod the genealogy of Iris (the rainbow), as the daughter of or Wonder, as a sort of poetical argument that Wonder is the parent of philosophy, as though the rainbow were placed in the heavens to stimulate men in the pursuit of curious knowledge. But it is the religious use that is prominent in this as in all the Bible appeals to the observation of nature. It is for the support of faith in the God of nature, that we may look upon it and remember; and this is admirably expressed in a Rabbinical doxology to be found in the Talmudic Kidduschin, fol. 8, and which was to be recited at every appearance of the rainbow, , Blessed be thou Jehovah our God, King of eternity (or of the world), ever mindful of thy covenant, faithful in thy covenant, firm in thy word, comp. Psa 119:89, Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. The Targum of Oukelos translates Gen 9:13 : And it shall be a sign, , between my word and the earth.
It is not unreasonable to suppose some reference to this place in that difficult passage Hab 3:9, , most obscurely rendered in our English version, thy bow was made quite nakedthe oaths of the tribesthe word. Kimchi translates it revealed, made manifest. It is commonly thought that all that is said in that sublime chapter has reference to events that took place during the exodus, but there is good ground for giving it a wider range, so as to take in other divine wonders, in creation and in the patriarchal history.T. L.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. There are the most distinct indications that the flood, as the greatest epoch of the primitive time, made a turning point, not only in the spiritual life of humanity, but also in its physical relations,yea, in the very life of the earth itself. Only we may not, in the first place, regard this turning point as a sudden change of all relations; just as little as the fall (Genesis 3) suddenly brought in death, or as the confusion of tongues produced immediately the wide-spread diversities of language. And, in the second place, again, it must not be regarded as a change of all relations for the worse. There is supposed to have been a change of the atmosphere (concerning the rain and the rainbow, see above). At all events, the paradisaical harmony of the earth had departed at an earlier day. But, on the other hand, there comes in now a more constant order of the atmospherical relations (Gen 8:22). Again, some have called it a sudden change in the duration of human life. But to this is opposed the fact that the aged Noah lived 350 years after the flood. It is evident, however, that during the period of Noahs life the breaking through of death from the inner to the outer life had made a great advance. And to this the fear which the flood brought upon the children and grandchildren of Noah (not upon himself) may have well contributed. As far as relates to the increasing ferocity of the wild beasts towards men, the ground of their greater estrangement and savageness cannot be found in their deliverance in the ark. Already had the mysterious paradisaical peace between man and beast departed with the fall. Moreover, the words: all flesh had corrupted its way, (Gen 6:12) indicate that together with mens increasing wickedness the animal world had grown more ferocious. But if the mode of life as developed among men made the eating of flesh (and drinking of wine) a greater necessity for them than before, then along with the sanctioning of this new order of life, must there have been sanctioned also the chase. And so out of this there must have arisen a state of war between man and the animal world, which would have for its consequence an increased measure of customary fear among the animals that were peculiarly exposed to it.
2. Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar to Jehovah, his covenant God, who had saved him. The living worship (cultus) was his first work, the culture of the vineyard was his second. The altar, in like manner, was the sign of the ancestral faith, as it had come down from paradise and had been transmitted through the ark. This faith was the seed-corn as well as sign of the future theocracy and the future church. It was an altar of faith, an altar of prayer, an altar of thanksgiving, for it was erected to Jehovah. But it was also an altar of confession, an acknowledgment that sin had not died in the flood, that Noah and his house was yet sinful and needed the symbolic sanctification. In this case, too, was the offering of an animal itself an expression of the greater alacrity in the sacrifice since Noah had preserved only a few specimens of the clean animals. This readiness in the offering was in that case an expression of his faith in salvation, wherein, along with his prayer for grace and compassion, there was inlaid a supplication for his house, for the new humanity, for the new world. His offering was a burnt-offering, a whole burnt-offering (Kalil) or an ascending in the flame (Olah), as an expression that he, Noah, did thereby devote himself with his whole house, his whole race, and with the whole new earth, to the service of God. The single kinds of offering were all included in this central offering. It was this sense of his offering which made the strong burnt odor of the burning flesh, a sweet savor for Jehovah in a metaphorical sense. The attestation of Jehovah makes it evident in what sense Noah offered it. It expresses 1. an averting of the curse from the ground, 2. the fact that the hereditary sinfulness of man was to be an object of the divine compassion. The sinful tendency in its connection with the act of sin is guilt, but in its connection with the need of salvation and salvation itself, it is an evil, the sorest of diseases and suffering (see above); 3. the promise that Jehovah would not again destroy every living thing; 4. the establishment of a constant order of nature; such as the prosperity of the new human race demanded. On this promise of sparing compassion for sinful men, and which God as Jehovah pronounces, there is grounded the renewed relation into which, as Elohim, he enters with all humanity, and the creature world connected with it. This relation is denoted by grants made by God to man, and demands which he makes of man, whereupon follows the establishment of the Elohistic covenant with Noah and all living. The Grants of God: 1. the repetition of the blessing upon Noah and upon all his house, as before upon the animals; 2. the renewed grant of dominion over the beasts; the sanction given to the eating of flesh. In contrast with these grants that guarantee the existence and well-being of the human race, stand the demands or claims made in respect to human conduct. The first is the avoidance of the eating of flesh with the blood, whereby there is together established the sanctification of the enjoyment, the avoidance of savageness as against nature, and of cruelty as against the beast. The second not only forbids the shedding of human blood, but commands also the punishment of murder; it ordains the magistracy with the sword of retribution. But it expresses, at the same time, that the humane civil organization of men must have a moral basis, namely the acknowledgment that all men are brothers ( every man, his brother man), and with this again, a religious basis, or the faith in a personal God, and that inviolability of the human personality which rests in its imaged kinsmanship with God. On this follows the establishment of the covenant. Still it is not made altogether dependent on the establishment of the preceding claims. It is a covenant of promise for the sparing of all living that reaches beyond this, because it is made not for individuals but for all, not merely for the morally accountable but for infants, not merely for men but also for the animal world. Notwithstanding, however, this transcending universality of the divine covenant, it is, in truth, made on the supposition that faith in the grace and compassion of Jehovah, piety in respect to the blessing, the name and the image of Elohim, shall correspond to the divine faithfulness, and that men shall find consolation and composure in the sign of the rainbow, only in as far as they preserve faith in Gods word of promise.
3. In the preceding Section we must distinguish between what God says in his heart, and what Elohim says to Noah and his sons. The first word, which doubtless was primarily comprehensible to Noah only, is the foundation of the second. For Gods grace is the central source of his goodness to a sinful world, as on the side of men the believing are the central ground for the preservation of the world, as they point to Christ the absolute centre, She worlds redeemer, having, however, his preserving life in those who are his own, as his word testifies: Ye are the salt of the earth. We must, then, again distinguish between the word of blessing, which embraced Noah and his sons, and with them humanity in general, and the word of the covenant which embraced all living (Gen 9:10).
4. The institutions of the new humanity: 1. At the head stands the altar with its burnt-offering as the middle point and commencing point of every offering, an expression of feeling that the life which God gave, which he graciously spares, which he wonderfully preserves, shall be consecrated to him, and consumed in his service. 2. The order of nature, and, what is very remarkable, as the ordinance of Jehovah, made dependent on the foregoing order of his kingdom of grace. 3. The institution of the marriage blessing, of the consecration of marriage, of the family, of the dispersion of men. 4. The dominion of man over the animal world, as it embraces the keeping of cattle, the chase, manifold use of the beasts. 5. The holding as sacred the bloodthe blood of the animal for the altar of God, the blood of man for the priestly service of God; the institution of the humanitat,8 of the humane culture and order, especially of the magistracy, of the penal and judicial office (including personal self-defence and defensive war). 6. The grounding of this humanitat on the religious acknowledgment of the spiritual personality, of the relation of kinsman that man bears to God, of the fraternal relation of men to each other, and, consequently, the grounding of the state on the basis of religion. 7. The appointment of the humanization of the earth (Gen 9:7) in the command to men to multiply on the earthproperly, upon it, and by means of it. As men must become divine through the image of God, so the earth must be humanized. 8. The appointment of the covenant of forbearance, which together with the security of the creature-world against a second physical flood, expresses also the security of the moral world against perishing in a deluge of anarchy, or in the floods of popular commotion (Psalms 93). 9. The appointment of the sign of the covenant, or of the rainbow as Gods bow of peace, whereby there is at the same time expressed, in the first place, the elevation of men above the deification of the creature (since the rainbow is not a divinity, but a sign of God, an appointment which even the idolatrous nations appear not to have wholly forgotten, when they denote it Gods bridge, or Gods messenger); in the second place, their introduction to the symbolic comprehension and interpretation of natural phenomena, even to the symbolizing of forms and colors; thirdly, that Gods compassion remembers men in their dangers, as indicated by the fact, that in the sign of the rainbow his eye meets their eye; fourthly, the setting up a sign of light and fire, which, along with its assurance that the earth will never again be drowned in water, indicates at the same time its future transformation and glorification through light and fire.
5. In the rainbow covenant all men, in their dealings with each other, and, at the same time, with all animals, have a common interest, namely, in the preservation of life, a common promise, or the assurance of the divine care for life, and a common duty in the sparing of life.
6. The offering as acceptable to God, and its prophetic significance.
7. The disputes concerning original sin have variously originated from not distinguishing its two opposing relations. These are, its relation to actual sin, Rom 5:12, and to the desire for deliverance, Rom 7:23-25.
8. The magical or direct power of man over the beasts is not taken away, but flawed, and thereupon repaired through his mediate power, derived from that superiority which he exercises as huntsman, fisher, fowler, etc. In regard to the first, compare Langes Miscellaneous Writings, vol. iv. p. 189.
9. The ordinance of the punishment of death for murder, involves, at the same time, the ordinance of the magistracy, of the judicial sentence, and of the penal infliction. But in the historical development of humanity, the death-penalty has been executed with fearful excess and false application (for example, to the crime of theft); since in this way, generally, all humane savageness and cruelty has mingled in the punitive office. From this is explained the prejudice of the modern humanitarianism against capital punishment. It is analogous to the prejudice against the excommunication, and similar institutes, which human ignorance and furious human zeal have so fearfully abused. Yet still, a divine ordinance may not be set aside by our prejudices. It needs only to be rightly understood according to its own limitation and idea. The fundamental principle for all time is this, that the murderer, through his own act and deed, has forfeited his right in human society, and incurred the doom of death. In Cain this principle was first realized, in that, by the curse of God, he was excommunicated, and driven, in self-banishment, to the land of Nod. This is a proof, that in the Christian humanitarian development, the principle may be realized in another form than through the literal, corporeal shedding of blood (see Langes treatise Gesetsliche Kirche als Sinnbild, p. 72). It must not, indeed, he overlooked, that the mention is not merely of putting to death, but also of blood-shedding, and that the latter is a terrific mode of speech, whose warnings the popular life widely needed, and, in many respects, still needs. Luther: There is the first command for the employment of the secular sword. In the words there is appointed the secular magistracy, and the right as derived from God, which puts the sword in its hands. Every act of murder, according to the Noachian law, appears as a fratricide, and, at the same time as malice against God.
10. To this passage: for in the image of God made he man, as also to the passage, Jam 3:9, has the appeal been made, to show that even after the fall there is no mention of any loss of the divine image, but only of a darkening and disorder of the same. Others, again, have cited the apparently opposing language, Coloss. Gen 3:10, and similar passages. But in this there has not always been kept in mind the distinction of the older dogmatics between the conception of the image in its wider sense (the spiritual nature of man) and the more restricted sense (the spiritual constitution of man). In like manner should there be made a further distinction between the disposition of Adam as conformed to the image (made in, or after the image) and the image itself as freely developed in Christ (the express image, Hebrews 13.), as also finally between the natural man considered in the abstract, in the consequences of his fall, and the natural man in the concrete, as he appears in the operation of the gratia prveniens. This perfect developed image Adam could not have lost, for he had not attained to it. Neither can men lose the ontological image as grounded in the spiritual nature, because it constitutes its being; but it may darken and distort it. The image of God, however, in the ethical sense, the divine mind ( ), this he actually lost to the point where the gratia prveniens laid hold on him, and made a point of opposition between his gradual restoration and the fall in abstracto. But to what degree this image of God in fallen man had become lost, is shown in this very law against murder, which expresses the inalienable, personal worth, that is, the worth that consists in the image as still belonging to man, and thus, in contrast with grace, must man become conscious of the full consequences of his sinful corruption according to the word: what would I have been without thee? what would I become without thee?
11. With this chapter has the Rabbinical tradition connected their doctrine of the seven Noachic precepts. (Buxtorf: Lexicon Talmudicum, article, Ger, ). They are: 1. De judiciis; 2. de benedictione Dei; 3. de idolatria fugienda; 4. de scortatione; 5. de effusione sanguinis; 6. de rapina; 7. de membro de animali vivo sc. non tollendo. The earlier supposition, that the Apostolical decree (Acts 15) had relation to this, and that, accordingly, in its appointments, it denominated the heathen Christians as proselytes of the gate (on whom the so-called Noachian laws were imposed) is disputed by Meyer, in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (p. 278), though not on satisfactory grounds. The matter of chief interest is the recognition, that in the Israelitish consciousness there was a clear distinction between revealed patriarchal precepts and the Mosaic law. Such a distinction is also expressed by Christ, Joh 7:22-23. So, too, did the Levitical law make a distinction between such precepts as were binding upon aliens (proselytes of the gate) and such as were binding upon the Jews (Lev 17:14; see Bibelwerk, Acts of the Apostles, p. 215). It lies in the very nature of the case, that in Acts 15 the seventh precept of the tradition, according to its wider appointment, was divided into two (namely, abstinence from blood and from things strangled), and that, moreover, only those points came into the general view, in respect to which heathen Christians, as freer Christians, might be liable to fail. It was, in fact, a monotheistic patriarchal custom, which, as the expression of the patriarchal piety and humaneness, became the basis of the Mosaic law, and on this basis must the heathen Christians have come together in ethical association, if, in their freedom from the dogmas of the Mosaic law, they would not endanger even the churchly and social communion of the Jewish Christians (see Lange: Geschichte des Apostolischen Zeitalters, ii. p. 187). The prohibition of blood-eating has here no longer any dogmatic significance, but only an ethical. The Greek Church mistook this in its maintenance of the prohibition (Trullanic Council, 692), whereas, the Western Church, in the changed relations, let the temporary appointment become obsolete.
12. On the symbolical significance of the rainbow, see Delitzsch, p. 277, and Langes Miscellaneous Writings, i. p. 277, from which Delitzsch gives the following passage: The rainbow is the colored glance of the sun as it breaks forth from the night of clouds; it is its triumph over the floodsa solar beam, a glance of light burnt into the rain-cloud in sign of its submission, in sign of the protection of all living through the might of the sun, or rather the compassion of God. To this adds Delitzsch: As it lights up the dark ground that just before was discharging itself in flashes of lightning, it gives us an idea of the victory of Gods love over the black and fiery wrath; originating as it does from the effects of the sun upon the sable vault, it represents to the senses the readiness of the heavenly light to penetrate the earthly obscurity; spanned between heaven and earth, it announces peace between God and man; arching the horizon, it proclaims the all-embracing universality of the covenant of grace. He then cites some of the mythical designations of the rainbow. It is called by the Hindoos, the weapon of Indras; by the Greeks, Iris, the messenger of the gods; by the Germans, Bifrst (living way), and Asen-brcke, bridge of Asen; by the Samoeids, the seam or border of Gods robe. There are, besides, many significant popular sayings connected with its appearance. Knobel: The old Hebrews looked upon it as a great band joining heaven and earth, and binding them both together; as the Greek comes from , to tie or bind,9 they made it, therefore, the sign of a covenant, or of a relation of peace between God in heaven, and the creatures upon the earth. In a similar manner the heavenly ladder, Gen 28:12. On this, nevertheless, it must be remarked, that the Hebrews were conscious of the symbolic sense of the designation; not so, however, the Greeks, who were taken with the fable merely. In like manner, too, did the Hebrew view rest upon a divine revelation. How far the mere human interpretation may be wide of the truth, is shown by the fact, that classical antiquity regarded the rainbow as for the most part announcing rain, the wintry storm, and war.
[Note on the Ancient, the Universal, and the Unchanging Law of Homicide.The divine statute, recorded Gen 9:6, is commonly assailed on grounds that are no less an abuse of language, than they are a perversion of reason and Scripture. The taking the life of the murderer is called revengeno distinction being made between this word, which ever denotes something angry and personal, and vengeance, which is the requital of justice, holy, invisible, and free from passion. On this false ground there is an attempt to set the Old Testament in opposition to the New, notwithstanding the express words of Christ to the contrary. This perverse misnomer, and the argument grounded upon it, apply equally to all punishment, strictly suchto all retributive justice, or to any assertion of law that is not resolvable into the merest expediency, excluding altogether the idea of desert, and reducing the notion of crime simply to that of mischief, or inconvenience. It thus becomes itself revenge in the lowest and most personal sense of the term. Discarding the higher or abstract justice, giving it no place in human law, severing the earthly government wholly from the divine, the proceeding called punishment, or justice, is nothing more nor less than the setting the mere personal convenience of the majority, called society, against that of the smaller numbers whom such society calls criminals. This has all the personality of revenge, whether with passion, or without; whereas, the abstract justice, with its moral ground, and its idea of intrinsic desert, alone escapes the charge. Intimately connected with this is the question respecting the true idea and sanction of human government,whether it truly has a moral ground, or whether it is nothing higher than human wills, and human convenience, by whatever low and ever falling standard it may be estimated. If the murderer is punished with death simply because he deserves it, because God has commanded it, and the magistrate and the executioner are but carrying out that command, then all the opposite reasoning adverted to falls immediately to the ground. It has neither force nor relevancy.
The same, too, may be said in respect to much of the reasoning in favor of capital punishment, so far as it is grounded on mere expediency, and is not used as a collateral aid to that higher principle by which alone even a true expediency can be sustained. Should it even be conceded that this higher principle is, in itself, and for its own sake, above the range of human government, still must it be acknowledged in jurisprudence as something necessary to hold up that lower department of power and motive which is universally admitted to fall within it. Reformation and prevention will never be effected under a judicial system which studiously, and even hostilely (for there can be no neutrality here) shuts out all moral ideas. There may be a seeming reform in such case; but it has no ground in the conscience, because it is accompanied by no conviction of desert, to which such influences must be wholly alien. The deterring power, on the other hand, must constantly lose its vigor, as the terror of the invisible justice fades away in the ignoring of the law, and there takes its place in the community that idea of punishment which is but the warring of opposite conveniences, and the collision of stronger with weaker human wills.
Men are not merely permitted to take the life of the murderer, if the good of society require it, but they are commanded to do so unconditionally. In no other way can the community itself escape the awful responsibility. Blood rests upon it. Impunity makes the whole land guilty. A voice cries to heaven. Murder unavenged is a pollution. Num 35:33; Psa 106:38; Mic 4:11. Such is the strong language of the Scripture as we find it in Genesis, in the statute of the Pentateuchwhich is only a particular application of the general lawand in the Prophets. Such, too, is the expression of all antiquityso strong and clear that we can only regard it as an echo of this still more ancient voicethe , as schylus styles it in a passage before referred to, Note, p. 257. The Greek dramatic poetry, like the Scriptures, presents it as the crime inexpiable, for which no lesser satisfaction was to be received: Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of the murderer, who is guilty of death. Num 35:31.
,
Lavish all wealth for blood, for one mans blood
Tis all in vain. sch., Choph. 518.
And this gives the answer to another false argument: It was only a law for the Jews, it is said. The first refutation is found in this passage, which is certainly universal, if anything can be called such. It was just after that most fearful judgment which had been brought upon the earth by lust and murder. It is not a prediction, but a solemn statute made for all, and to all, who then constituted the human race. It has the strongest aspect of universality. The reason for it, namely, the assailing the image of God, not only embraces all earthly humanity, but carries us into the spiritual and supernatural world. The particular law afterwards made for the Jews refers back to this universality in that repeated declaration which makes it to differ from all other Jewish laws that do not contain it: This shall be a statute to you in all your places, in all generations. The language is universal, the reason is universal, the consequences of impunity are universal.
Such, too, was the sentiment of all antiquity, a thing we are not to despise in endeavoring to ascertain what is fundamental in the ideas of ethics and jurisprudence. The law for the capital punishment of homicide was everywhere. The very superstitions connected with it, as shown in the expiatory ceremonies, are evidence of the deep sense of the human mind, that this crime, above all others, must have its adequate atonement; and that this could only be, life for life, blood for blood
.
Even in the case of accidental homicide, an expiatory cleansing was demanded. These ideas appear sometimes in harsh and revolting forms. The language is occasionally terrific, especially as it appears in the ancient tragedy; but all this only shows the strength and universality of the feeling, together with the innate sense of justice on which it was grounded. Aristotle reckons the punishment of murder by death among the , the universal unwritten laws, as they are styled by Sophocles in the Antigone, 451, although, in the latter passage, the reference is to the rights of burial, and the sacredness of the human bodyideas closely connected with the primitive law against murder as a violation of the divine image in humanity. All of this class of ordinances are spoken of as very ancient. No man knew from whence they came, nor when they had their origin.
,
, .
Not now, nor yesterday, but evermore
Live these; no memory tracks their birth.
To the same effect does the philosopher quote the lines of Empedocles, , on the crime of taking life, or slaying that which has soul in it,
Very much in the language of the Hebrew phrase . Num 31:19. For this, he saysnamely, the punishment of homicide by deathis not the law in one place, and not in another,
.
See Aristotles Rhetorica, lib. i. ch. xiii. Comp. also Sophocles: Ajax, 1343, and the dipus Tyran. 867.
The blood revenge, or rather, the blood vengeance, as it should be called, Die Blutrache, has an odious sound, because pains have been taken to connect with it odious associations, but it is only a mode of denoting this strong innate idea of justice demanding retribution in language corresponding to the horror of the crime,the enormity of which, according to the Scripture, is not simply that it is productive of inconveniencepain and deprivation to the individual and loss to societybut that it is assailing the image of God, the distinguishing essence of humanity. So that it seems to justify the Rabbins in what might otherwise appear an extravagant saying, namely, that he who slays one man intentionally is as though he had slain all men. He has assailed humanity; as far as lies in his power, he has aimed at the destruction of the human race. The same thought, Koran, v. 35.
The crime of murder must be punished, the land must be cleansed; and so before organized human government had, or could have had existence, to a sufficient extent for prompt and methodical judicial processes, it was not merely permitted, but enjoined upon, those nearest the transaction, to execute the divine sentence. Those who were disobedient to this command were themselves stained with blood, or as long as it was unexecuted. Hence the phrase , which becomes the general name for the pursuer or prosecutor; whence it has passed into the law language of almost all criminal codes. He is also called the Redeemer or rescuer. In this sense it is transferred to the Great Redeemer, our next of kin, the avenger of the spiritual murder of our race, as against the great demonic homicide who is called a manslayer from the beginning, Joh 8:44; compare also Job 19:25. From the criminal side of justice, we may say, this term, by a very natural transition of ideas, is carried to the civil, and so the Goel, or Redeemer, is also the next of kin who buys back the lost inheritance.
Sometimes the objection to capital punishment assumes a pious tone, and quotes the Scriptural declaration: Vengeance is mine. See, however, the true interpretation of this phrase, as given by the Apostle himself, Rom 12:19, and in what immediately follows in Genesis 13, about the magistracy as ordained of God. It is Gods justice, not merely delegated to, but imposed upon, human society, thus making it the very antithesis of that revenge with which it is so sophistically confounded. The odious term, it may be repeated, is far more applicable to that doctrine of expediency which, in discarding the idea of desert, has nothing deeper or firmer to build upon than the shifting notions of human convenience, and the antagonism of human wills. There is undoubtedly given to men great freedom in determining the details of jurisprudence, and in fixing the gradations of punishment. Here, to a certain extent, expediency may come in as a modifying influence, harmonizing with the higher moral principle which cannot be kept out of law without destroying all its healthy, conserving power. But some things are fundamental; and they cannot be changed without weakening all the sanctions of human government. Among these is the punishment due to the crime of blood-shedding. God has fixed it. The State, indeed, may disobey; it may contemn other social ordinances having a like divine institution; but in so doing it discards its own highest idea, and rejects the only foundation on which it can permanently rest. It builds alone on human wills, and that is building on the sand.
The reason here given: for in the image of God made he man, seems to have an intensity of meaning which forbids its being confined to the spiritual or immaterial. It penetrates even the corporeal or organic nature, as Lange appears to intimate. There is a sense in which it may be said to inhere even in the body, and, through it, to be directly assailable. The human body itself is holy, as the residence of the Spirit, as the temple in which this divine image is enshrined, and through which it is reflected. Compare the , 1Co 3:16. Something like this seems to be implied in the strange expression , as it occurs, Num 31:19, and which is identical with the ancient Arabian phrase , as found in the Koran. See Surat. v. 35, , he who slays a soul except for a soul, that is, unless in retribution for a soul. This is the literal sense, strange as it may sound; but may be taken here in the general sense of person, as is used in several passages of the New Testamentthe soul put for the whole personality. Or there may be the ellipsis of some such word as , the tabernacle of the soul, an assault upon which is an assault upon the soul itself; and this may also be the explanation of the Hebrew phrase , he who smiteth a soul. Compare Gen 37:21, , let us not smite him (Joseph) the soul. But in a still closer sense the body may be called the image of the soul, the reflection of the soul, even as the soul is the image, or in the image of God. And this furnishes good ground for such transfer of the sense, even to that which is most outward in the human constitution. We may trace the shadow of the idea as surviving even in the Greek poetry, where the human body is styled . See Euripides: Suppliants, 616, where it is applied to the decomposed and mouldering remains of the Argive warrior when carried to the funeral-pyre:
.
To the funeral-pyre thine image bear I forth
Marred as it is.
It is spoken of as something sacred to the patron deity of the Argive state, like a statue or a shrine. See also Plato: Phdrus, 251 A. The expression may also have some connection with the old idea of the blood as the seat of the soul, regarded as representing it, and thus indirectly bearing the image of God. In any view, there is implied something holy in humanity, and even in the human bodysomething in it transcending matter or material organization, and which is not thus inherent in any other organic life, or corporeal structure.
But the murderer, too, it may be said, is made in the image of God, and therefore should he be spared. The answer to this is simply the citation of the divine command. His life is expressly demanded. He is , , one devoted. See 1Ki 20:42 : Because thou hast sent away , the man of my doom (or of my dooming), therefore shall thy soul be in place of his soul, . See also , the people of my doom, Isa 34:5. The judicial execution of the murderer is truly a sacrifice, an expiation, whatever may be objected to such an idea by a false humanitarianism which seems to have no thought how it is belittling humanity in its utter ignoring of anything above man, or of any relation between the human and the eternal justice.
Harsh as they may seem, we need these ideas to give the necessary strength to our relaxing judicial morality, and a more healthy tone to the individual and social conscience. The age is fast going into the other extreme, and crime, especially the crime of blood-shedding, is increasing in the ratio of our spurious tenderness. The harshness is now exhibiting its other and more hypocritical phase. Those who speak with contempt of the divine law, are constantly railing at society as itself the criminal in the punishment of crime, and as especially malignant and revengeful in discharging the divinely imposed duty of executing justice upon the murderer.T. L.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the Doctrinal and Ethical. Gen 8:20 would present a good text for a thanksgiving sermon. In connection with Gen 9:21, it would be suitable for an exposition of thankfulness. Gen 9:21 would be adapted to a sermon on human sinfulness in the light of the divine compassion. How Gods speaking in his heart re-echoes in the innermost heart of the believer. Gen 9:22 would be suitable for a representation of the connection between the kingdom of grace, and the kingdom of nature with its laws. Gen 9:1, A marriage-blessing at the celebration of a wedding. Gen 9:2-3, The worth and sacredness of the creaturely life (sparing of the animal, consecration of all enjoyment). Gen 9:5, The holy estimation of human life. The chief point of view in the whole Section is the covenant of God with Noah as the type of all covenants that follow; since they all rest upon the personal relation of God to man; all are of Gods free institution; all, moreover, as ethically personal alliances (after the manner of a contract), are an interchange of divine promises and human vows, of divine claims and human faith; all are sacramentally sealed. How God binds himself in his sacramental signs, and in them truly remembers the man who remembers him. How the divine eye of grace and the human eye of faith meet each other in the sacrament. The rainbow, the extraordinary phenomenon of heaven, and, on that account, an image of the divine kindness, compassion, and friendship. The light of the heavenly sun in the colors of the earthly rainbow.
Starke: Gen 8:20. The building of the altar; probably upon the mountains of Ararat. Noah valued thankfulness before all earthly business. It is not said through what means God made known to Noah his acceptance of the offering. We may conjecture that the offering was set on fire by fire from heaven (but the expression of satisfaction here follows the burning of the offering).
Gen 8:21, concerning the abuse of these words in the exculpation of sin (in many ways does the element of mildness in them become misapprehended).Gen 9:1, Because before the flood God was provoked at the sin of unchastity, it becomes necessary, in consideration of the fearful display of wrath, to show that he is not hostile to the lawful connection of man and woman, nor does he condemn, but rather designs through it the multiplication of the human race. Therefore, in this text is the marriage-state praised and celebrated, since thereout flows not only the order of the family and the world, but also the existence of the church.
Gen 9:3, Just as every herb does not serve for food, so also is not everything thereto serviceable that, by means of life, moves upon the earth.
Gen 9:4, The aim of the prohibition is mainly that the way of cruelty may be barred to men.
Gen 9:6, The magistracy is Gods ordinance, and derives the sword from no other authority (Rom 13:14). Starke prefers the view that the rainbow had existed before the flood, as in like manner he supposes, that before the flood men might eat of flesh.
Gen 9:15, Luther: When the Scripture says God remembers, it means that we feel and are conscious that he remembers it, namely, when he outwardly presents himself in such a manner, that we, thereby, take notice that he thinks thereon. Therefore it all comes to this: as I present myself to God, so does he present himself to me.
Schrder: After Gods curse on the occasion of the fall, we meet with the offerings of Cain and Abel; again do offering and altar connect themselves with the judicial curse of the flood.The Lord smelled a sweet savor, in the Hebrew, a savor of rest (resting, or satisfaction); (it denotes that God rests from his wrath and has become propitiated. Luther). Therefore is it a savor of satisfactiona chosen expression that becomes fixed in its application to the burnt-offering.Jehovah spake to his heart, that is, he resolved with himself. In the creation of man, Gen 1:26; Gen 2:18, and also in his destruction, there precedes a formal decree of God; and no less does the divine counsel precede the covenant for mans preservation. Prayer was always connected with the sacrifice; in fact, every offering was nothing else than an embodied prayer.While the earth remaineth. There is, therefore, even to the earth in its present state, a limit indicated (2Pe 3:5; 2Pe 3:7; 2Pe 3:10; Isaiah 66.; Rev 20:11; Rev 21:1).Gen 9:1, The Noachian covenant is a covenant of Elohim, a covenant with the universal nature. Luther finds in our Section the inauguration of an order of instruction, of economy, and of defence (Noahs offering, the blessing of the family, inauguration of the magistracy).
Gen 9:7, God does not love death, but life. The covenant is re-established, for as made with Adam it had failed. According to Calvin the rainbow had existed before, but was here again consecrated as a sign and a pledge.
Footnotes:
[20][Gen 8:20.from all the pure of the cattle, and from all the pure fowl. The word denotes selection. It can hardly mean one of every kind deemed pure among the cattle; much less can it have this large meaning in respect to the fowl (or the birds), among whom the pure species far excelled the impure, which are mentioned as exceptions (twenty-four in number), Lev 11:13; Deu 14:12. If Noah had had every earthly species of bird in the ark (seven of all that were regarded as pure), and offered of each in sacrifice, it would have required an immense altar. There was evidently a selection, and such use of the term here may serve as a guide in respect to its antecedent uses, justifying us in limiting it to the more common kinds of all species known to Noah, and inhabiting the portion of the earth visited by the flood.T. L.]
[21][Gen 8:21. A word of a very peculiar form, like , Isa 1:31. Aben Ezra compares it with , Hos 2:4. It denotes rest intensively; the rest, not of mere quietude, or cessation, but of satisfaction, complacency, delight. An odor of restof complete and gratified acceptance. Compare the suggested language, Zep 3:17, expressing Gods great satisfaction in Jerusalem, , He shall rest in his love. The word occurs here for the first time, and is evidently meant to have a connection with the name (Noah), but becomes the common phrase ( ) to denote the pleasant odor of the sacrifice, in Exodus, Leviticus, etc. Hence the New Testament Hebraism as seen in the word , in such passages as 2Co 2:15, a sweet savour of Christ, Eph 5:2, a sweet-smelling savour, Php 4:18, as also the use of , 2Co 2:16, the savour of life unto life. The Jewish interpreters here, as usual, are afraid of the anthropophatism, and so the Targum of Onkelos renders generally, The Lord received the offering graciously. In like manner the Jewish translator Arabs Erpenianus. Aben Ezra affects a horror of the literal sense. , he saysO profane! away with the thought that God should smell or eat. With all their reverence for their old Scriptures, these Jewish interp reters had got a taste of philosophy, and hence their Philonic fastidiousness, as ever manifested in a desire to smooth over all such language.T. L.]
[22][Gen 8:22., rendered wintermore properly autumn, though it may include the winter, as may include the spring.T. L.]
Footnotes:
[1][Ch. 9. Gen 9:5. , your blood of (or for) your souls. Maimonides renders it , your blood which is your souls. LXX., , blood of your souls.T. L.]
[2]Gen 9:6.. E. V. by man. This would seem rather to require the term , by the hand of man, the usual Hebrew phrase to denote instrumentality. That it was to be by human agency is very clear, but the in may be better taken, as it is by Jona ben Gannach (Abul-Walid), in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 33, to denote substitution,for man, in place of manlife for life, or blood for blood, as it is so strongly and frequently expressed in the Greek tragedy. The preposition , in this place, he says, is equivalent to , on account of, and he refers to 2Sa 14:7, Give us the man who smote his brother, and we will put him to death, , for the soul (the life, or in place of) his brother, Exo 20:2, , and he shall be sold for his theft, as also, among many other places, to Gen 44:5. , where, instead of divining by it, as in our English versions and the Vulgate, he gives what seems a more consistent rendering: he will surely divine for it (), that is, find out by divination, who has in his possession the lost cup. Such also seems to have been the idea of the LXX. in Gen 9:6, where they have nothing for but , in return for his blood. Arabs Erpenianus renders it by the word, or command, of man, indicating a judicial sentence. So the Targum of Onkelos, by the witnesses according to the word of judgment, and so also Rushi and Aben Ezra, , by man, that is, by the witnesses.T. L.]
[3][Gen 9:13., my bow, as just before, Gen 9:11, , my covenant. The language seems, on the very face of it, to imply a thing previously existing, called, from its remarkable appearance, the bow of God, and now appointed as a sign of the previously existing covenant. Had it been a new creation, the language would more properly have been: I will make, or set, a bow in the cloud. See remarks (in the Introd. to the I. ch. p. 144) on the rainbow as the symbol of constancy in nature, from its constant and regular appearance whenever the sun shines forth after the rain. For further views on this, and for the opinions of the Jewish commentators, see also note, p. 328.T. L.]
[4][Gen 9:14.This verse should be connected, in translation, with the one following. As it is rendered in E. V., the appearing of the bow is made the subject of the sentence (though apparently the predicate), whereas the sequence of the conjunction , and of the tenses, would give the sense thus: And it shall come to pass, when I bring the cloud, etc., and whenever the bow appears in the cloud, that I will remember my covenant; the conjunction before having an illative force.T. L.]
[5] [The flame mounting heavenward from the great altar of Noah, the vast column of smoke and incense majestically ascending in the calm, clear atmosphere, transcending seemingly the common law of gravity, and thus combining the ideas of tranquillity and power, would of itself present a striking image of the natural sublime. But, beyond this, there is a moral, we may rather say, a spiritual sublimity, to one who regards the scene in those higher relations which the account here indicates, and which other portions of Scripture make so clear. It offers to our contemplation the most vivid of contrasts. There comes to mind, on the one hand, the gross selfishness of the antediluvian world, ever tending downward more and more to earth and a sensual animalityin a word, devoting life to that which is lower than the lowest life itself; whilst now, on the contrary, there rises up in all its rich suggestiveness, the idea of sacrifice, of life devotion to that which is higher than all life, as symbolized in the flame ascending from the offered victim. It is, moreover, the spirit of confession, of penitence, of perfect resignation to the will of God as the rational rule of life,all, too, prefiguring One who made the great sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world, and who, although historically unknown to Noah, was essentially embraced in that recognition of human demerit, and of the divine holiness, which is styled the righteousness of faith. Whilst thus the new spirit of sacrifice ascends from the baptized earth, heaven is represented as bending down to meet the symbol of reconciliation; the infinite descends to the finite, and humanity, in verification of the Scripture paradox, rises through its very act of lowliness and self-abasement. The wrath all gone, infinite compassion takes now its place, and this is expressed in that striking Hebraism, the odor of rest, typifying the (2Co 2:4) the sweet savor of Christ in them who are saved.
The writer of this old account knew as well as Philo, or Strauss, or any modem rationalists, that God did not smell nor eat; but the emotional truthfulness of his inspiration made him adopt the strongest and the most emotional language without fear of inconsistency or anticipated cavil. How gross! says the infidel, this representation of God, snuffing up the odor of burning flesh; but it is he who snuffs at Gods holy altar (Mal 1:13). It is he who is gross in his profane mockery of a spirituality which his carnal earthliness utterly fails to comprehend.T. L.]
[6] [There is no need here of labored attempts to remove apparent inconsistencies. The most simple and direct interpretation of Scripture is generally that which is most conservative of its honor as well as of its truthfulness. The passage seems to assign the same reason for sparing the world that is given Gen 6:5-6, for its destruction; and in both cases there is used the same particle . Some would render it although: I will not again smite, etc., although the imagination of the heart of man is evil. Others, like Jacobus, would connect it with the words for mans sake, intimating that it should never more be done for this reason. But nothing of the kind helps the difficulty, if there be any difficulty. There are but very few places (if any) where can be rendered although. The passages cited by Noldius under this head in almost every case fail to bear him out. It is n particle denoting a reason, and sometimes a motive, like the two senses of the Greek and the Latin quod, or the two English conjunctions because and that. The idea presented by Lange gives the key. Sin is both guilt and disease. Mans depravity, therefore, is the object both of vengeance and compassion, two states of feeling which can exist, at the same time, perfect and unweakened, only in the divine mind, but which are necessarily presented to us in a succession, produced by varying circumstances on the finite or human side. It is in reference to the former that the language is used, Gen 6:5-6, where denotes the reason of the vengeance. Here, in like manner, it expresses the reason of the mercy. Noahs offering had made the difference, not changing God, but placing man in a different relation to him as viewed under a changed aspect. He is the poor creature, as well as the guilty creature. He is depraved from his youth, not meaning, we think, a less severe description of his sinfulness, as Lange seems to intimate, but giving a deeper view of it, as a greater calamity. It is not the mere habit-hardening or world-hardening of manhood and old age, as contrasted with the comparative innocence of childhood; but the seeds of the evil lie deep, away back in his very infancy. It is the hereditary, or disease, aspect that induces the language, which seems like regret on the part of Deity for an act so calamitous, though so just and necessary: neither will I again smite every living thing as I have done. It is as though his heart smote him, to use a transplanted Hebraism elsewhere employed of man, or as it is said of David. 1Sa 24:6. It would not be a stronger expression, or more anthropopathic, than that used Gen 6:6, and he was grieved at his heart. It is not, however, simply the idea of hopelessness in view of mans incorrigibility, but an expression of holy and infinite compassion, such as the closest criticism will more and more discover as abounding in this old book of Genesis, even in the midst of the severest threatening of judgment. The greatness of mans sin reveals the greatness of the divine sorrow on account of it. The sinner, too, is allowed to feel it, and make it a ground of his pleading for forgiveness; as the Psalmist prays, Psa 25:11 pardon mine iniquity, for () it is great. In that passage, too, some would render although, to the great marring of the force and pathos of the supplication. Christ did not die for small sins, as Cranmer has well said.
It is a peculiarity of the Holy Scriptures thus to set forth unshrinkingly the sharp contrasts, as we may reverently call them, in the divine attributes. None but inspired writers could venture to do this; and how boldly do they present them! often, too, in closest connection without betraying any fear of cavil, or charge of inconsistency. The tremendous wrath, and the most melting mercy appear in the same chapters, and sometimes in immediately succeeding verses. Among others, compare Nah 1:1; Nah 1:7. What a burning stream of indignation finds its closing cadence in the words: Jehovah, he is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, he knoweth them that put their trust in him. Such strong contrasts appear especially in portions of Scripture which the careless reader passes over as indelicate, like Ezekiel 16, that awful picture of impurity and utter depravity, as presented in the history of the meretricious and utterly abandoned woman who symbolized the Jewish and Israelitish people. A too fastidious taste would forbid the reading of that chapter, at least in any public religious service, but it is this most revolting representation (as some would style it) which is the very thing that makes the divine forgiveness and compassion at the close so full of a melting tenderness, beyond what any other kind of language could express: Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish with thee a covenant of eternity. Then shalt thou remember thy ways, and be ashamed, and thou shalt know that I am thy Lord, that thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith Adonai Elohim, thy Lord and thy God. The Hebrew is, literally, when I have made an atonement ( ) for thee, or a covering for thee. Eze 16:63. It is in these strong contrasts,in these apparent inconsistencies, as some would call them,that the great power and pathos of the Scripture appear.T. L.]
[7][The opinion of Delitzsch is not so broad as this. He seems, rather, to hold that the rainbow existed in nature before the flood, but had not appeared, on account of the absence of the conditions. See Delitzsch, p. 276.T. L.]
[8][Our word humanity will not do here at all; as it corresponds to the German menschheit; whilst our humanitarianism, on account of its abuse, would be still worse. It is defined by what follows.T. L.]
[9][Plato, in the Cratylus, fancifully connects it with , = , to speak, and gives it the idea of messenger (Hermes], or interpretation.T. L.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Is not the Lord Jesus both our New Testament, Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice? Heb 13:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Ver. 20. And Noah builded an altar to the Lord. ] This was his first care; and so it was Abraham’s wherever he came. It must be also ours, after great deliverances especially. God’s mercies are binders: Beneficium postulat officium . He is content we have the comfort of his blessings, so he may have the praise of them. This peppercorn is all the rent he looks for. Oh, cover we God’s altar “with the calves of our lips, giving thanks to his name”. Heb 13:15 This will “please him better than an ox that hath horns and hoofs”. Psa 69:31 Only let it be done, the first thing that we do, after the receipt of a benefit, which else will soon wax stale and putrify as fish. No part of the thank offering might be kept unspent to the third day. Hezekiah wrote his song the third day after his recovery. Noah was no sooner out of the ark, but he offered on his newly built altar; as well for testification of his thankfulness, as for confirmation of his faith in that Lamb of God, slain and sacrificed from the beginning of the world. “God was” now also “in Christ reconciling this” new “world to himself”. 2Co 5:19
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 8:20-22
20Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
22While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.
Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar His first act was that of worship and thanksgiving. Sacrifice is an ancient institution (cf. Gen 4:3; Gen 12:7-8; Gen 13:18; Gen 22:9). This is also the first act of Gilgamesh in the Gilgamesh Epic after the flood (cf. 11:156-158).
every clean animal The criteria determining clean and unclean is uncertain (cf. Gen 7:2), but apparently was related to sacrifice, not dietary guidelines (cf. Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14).
Gen 8:21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma This phrase is used in the Bible in the sense of God accepting an offering (especially Lev. and Num.). It does not imply that the meat was food for God as it was in the Gilgamesh Epic (cf. 11:159-161). The Bible never views the sacrificial system as food for divine beings as the surrounding nations did.
I will never again curse the ground. . .I will never again destroy every living thing These parallel statements show the tension in God’s heart between His love (cf. Isa 54:9) for His creation and His justice. Mankind is evil and corrupt but God has chosen to work with us in time and set it straight in the eschaton (i.e. last days). In this judgment God’s attitude toward sinful mankind changed. Humans are still evil. God’s attitude will change again when His people are unable to perform the Mosaic covenant. God will institute a new covenant (cf. Jer 31:31-34 and Eze 36:27-38). Humans will be made right with God through the Messiah’s performance and sacrificial death.
Although it is surely true that God promises never to send another flood, 2Pe 3:10 asserts that He will purify the earth with fire. God will work with sinful mankind but His goal is righteousness (cf. Lev 19:2; Mat 5:48).
the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth The evil so evident before the flood (cf. Gen 6:5; Gen 6:11-13) is still within fallen mankind, as Noah and his family will clearly show!
Gen 8:22 It is this constancy in nature that has given rise to modern western science. God established uniformitarianism (i.e. the regular, uniform activities of nature). However, notice the initial phrase while the earth remains. Gen 8:22 is printed in English translations in a poetic passage.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
altar. The first mentioned in Scripture.
offered. Hebrew ‘alah. App-43.
burnt offerings. Hebrew. ‘oldh.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Gen 8:20-21. And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offering on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour;
A savour of rest,
Gen 8:21-22. And the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for mans sake; for the imagination of mans heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
So that you all live under a covenant, a gracious covenant, and, by virtue of it, the day succeeds the night, the summer follows the winter, and the harvest in due course rewards the labour of the seedtime. All this ought to make us long to be under the yet fuller and higher covenant of grace, by which spiritual blessings would he scoured to us, an eternal day to follow this earthly night, and a glorious harvest to follow this time of seed-sowing.
This exposition consisted of readings from Gen 8:20-22; Gen 9:8-17; and Isa 54:1-10.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
builded: Gen 4:4, Gen 12:7, Gen 12:8, Gen 13:4, Gen 22:9, Gen 26:25, Gen 33:20, Gen 35:1, Gen 35:7, Exo 20:24, Exo 20:25, Exo 24:4-8, Rom 12:1, Heb 13:10, Heb 13:15, Heb 13:16, 1Pe 2:5, 1Pe 2:9
clean beast: Gen 7:2, Lev 11:1-47
burnt: Lev 1:1-17
Reciprocal: Gen 13:18 – altar Gen 22:7 – but Gen 46:1 – and offered Exo 18:12 – took Lev 1:3 – a burnt Lev 1:10 – of the flocks Num 7:21 – General Num 23:3 – burnt Jos 8:30 – built an altar 2Sa 24:25 – built there Job 1:5 – offered Eze 14:14 – Noah Jon 1:16 – offered
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE FIRST ALTAR IN THE NEW WORLD
And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar, etc.
Gen 8:20-22
Noah, we are told, was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Noah reverenced right and justice; he ordered his family well; he lived in the presence of an unseen Being, who is right and true, and who had appointed him to be the head of a family. By the orderliness and quietness of his life he became a witness against the turbulent, self-willed world, in the midst of which he was dwelling. But there is in him also an earnest interest in his fellow-men. He separates from them only that he may be a witness to them of the good that they are flying from, and which he claims for himself and his family because he believes that God designs it for the creatures He has formed.
I. There is an evident difference between the sacrifice of Noah and those of Cain and Abel.Here, under Gods guidance, the mound of turf gives place to the altar which is built. An order is discovered in the dignity of the inferior creatures; the worthiest are selected for an oblation to God; the fire which consumes, the flame which ascends, are used to express the intention of him who presents the victim.
II. We must feel that there was an inward progress in the heart of the man corresponding to this progress in his method of uttering his submission and his aspirations.Noah must have felt that he was representing all human beings; that he was not speaking what was in himself so much as offering the homage of the restored universe.
III. The foundation of sacrifice is laid in the fixed will of God; in His fixed purpose to assert righteousness; in the wisdom which adapts its means to the condition of the creature for whose sake they are used. The sacrifice assumes eternal right to be in the Ruler of the universe, all the caprice to have come from man, from his struggle to be an independent being, from his habit of distrust. When trust is restored by the discovery that God means all for his good, then he brings the sacrifice as a token of his surrender.
Rev. F. D. Maurice.
Illustration
(a) Here was an act of worship. Noahs first thoughts were of God. He did not think, as many would have done, Now there is no one in the world beside myself and my family; everything belongs to us; we can do as we please. He remembered Gods mercy and goodness, and so he praised Him. It is true he had built the ark, but he felt that his deliverance was altogether owing to Gods favour and Gods providence. Do we acknowledge His goodness every day?
(b) Here was an act of sacrifice. This is the first altar mentioned in history. We do not read that Adam or any of his immediate descendants built an altar on which to present their offerings. They may have have done so, but it is not related. Nor is it said that God gave Noah any instructions as to building an altar, as He had done in regard to building the ark. It was thus the free expression of his own gratitude, and therefore all the more acceptable.
(c) Note that Noah, though all other animals that he knew of were destroyed, except the few he had preserved in the ark, did not hesitate to sacrifice some of every sort of clean beasts and birds. He did not stop to ask what he should do for more. Like the man who gives up everything for conscience sake, trusting to Gods providence. Or, like the poor widow who gave all her living.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
GODS COVENANT WITH NOAH
What did Noah do on leaving the ark (Gen 8:20)? How does this verse bear on Gen 7:2? What indicates the acceptance of his offering, and by its acceptance that of himself (Gen 8:21)? What divine promise was associated with this acceptance? Of course, this does not mean that no further judgment is to be visited on the earth, as may be seen by 2Th 1:7-10; 2Pe 3:10-13, and Revelation 14:22.
Where, earlier, have we met the blessing now bestowed on Noah and his family (Gen 9:1)? What new power over the brute creation is now put into mans hands (Gen 9:2)? If his dominion previously was that of love, of what was its nature to be henceforth? If his food previously was limited to herbs, to what is it now extended (Gen 9:3)? But what limitation is put upon it, and why (Gen 9:4)? We see here that from the times of the deluge the blood was constituted a most sacred thing, devoted exclusively to God, to make expiation on the altar of sacrifice for the sins of men (Lev 17:11-14). When the blood of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world had been shed, this prohibition ceased naturally, together with the reason for it. The apostles, nevertheless, as a concession to the scruples of the Jewish Christians, ordained its continuance (Act 15:1-29), a concession which likewise of itself fell into disuse with the cessation of the occasion for it the disappearance of Judaic Christianity.
To speak further of eating meat, some regard it as a lightening of the curse in that flesh was more easily obtained than the products of the soil, but others consider it as bearing on the intercourse with the spiritual beings previously spoken of. In this connection it is in point to remark that the votaries of spiritualism, theosophy and other occultisms are denied a meat diet on the ground that it interferes with their mysterious (and sinful) affinities.
What magisterial functions not previously exercised are now conferred on man (Gen 9:5-6)? The death penalty has been abused in almost all the countries of the world, but this does not justify its abolition in cases of premeditated homicide; and unwillingness to apply to the criminal the pain of death ordained by God Himself, the Author of life, always tends to the increase of crime and gives loose rein to personal vengeance. The inviolability of human life means that the life of a human being is a thing so sacred that he who takes it without just cause must pay for it with his own in amends to outraged justice, both human and divine. Compare Num 35:33.
What are the terms of the covenant now made with Noah (Gen 9:8-11)? And what token or seal does God set to it (Gen 9:12-17)? The rainbow may have been seen before, but God now employs it for a new purpose. And the token is not only for us, but also for every living thing, and for perpetual generations. And then, too, God looks upon it and remembers the covenant whether we do or not, our deliverance depending not on our seeing it. This calls to mind the promise of Exo 12:13 : When I see the blood, I will pass over you.
QUESTIONS
(1)What was the result of the earliest civilization, morally considered?
(1)What two applications have been given to the sons of God in Gen 6:1-22?
(2)What is the Hebrew for giants, and what is its meaning?
(3)How might be explained the large number of animals in the ark?
(4)In what way may the ark be used as a type of Christ?
(5)In what two ways is the story of the flood corroborated?
(6)What two reasons have been given for the privilege of eating meat?
(7)What element will be employed in the next destruction of the earth?
(8)Have we biblical authority and mandate for capital punishment?
(9)What circumstances of special interest do you recall in connection with the rainbow?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Gen 8:20. Noah builded an altar The first altar that we read of; but not the first which was built; for the sacrifices which were offered before, Gen 4:3-4, presuppose an altar or altars. And it ought to be well observed, that the silence of Scripture concerning any thing is not sufficient evidence that it was not done; to remember which will greatly assist us in understanding many passages of the sacred oracles. Here we see, that the first thing that he did after his wonderful preservation was to pay this debt of gratitude so justly due to that God who had so wonderfully preserved him. Hitherto he had done nothing without particular instructions and commands from God: but altars and sacrifices being already of divine institution, he did not stay for a particular command thus to express his thankfulness. And he offered on the altar, of every clean beast, and of every fowl One, the odd seventh that we read of, Gen 7:2-3.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
8:20 And Noah {i} builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
(i) For sacrifices which were as an exercise of their faith, by which they used to give thanks to God for his benefits.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Noah’s "altar" is the first altar mentioned in the Bible. His "burnt offerings" were for worship. Some of the burnt offerings in the Mosaic cultus (system of worship) were for the same purpose. Specifically, a burnt offering made atonement and expressed the offerer’s complete personal devotion to God (cf. Leviticus 1; Rom 12:1-2). As the head of the new humanity, Noah’s sacrifice represented all humankind.
God may judge the wicked catastrophically and begin a new era of existence with faithful believers.
The non-biblical stories of the Flood are undoubtedly perversions of the true account that God preserved in Scripture. God may have revealed the true account directly to Moses, or He may have preserved a true oral or written account that Moses used as his source of this information. Moses may have written Genesis under divine inspiration to correct the Mesopotamian versions (the maximalist view), or both the biblical and Mesopotamian accounts may go back to a common tradition (the minimalist view). [Note: For a chart that compares the biblical account of the Flood with four other ancient Near Eastern accounts of it, see Appendix 2 at the end of these notes.]
"Biblical religion explained that the seasonal cycle was the consequence of Yahweh’s pronouncement and, moreover, evidence of a divine dominion that transcends the elements of the earth. There is no place for Mother-earth in biblical ideology. Earth owes its powers (not her powers!) to the divine command." [Note: Mathews, p. 397.]