Episode 15: Old Seeds in a New World
After the Flood, everyone planted something in the New World, but what would they end up harvesting?
Quotes from the Bible were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a place to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
For the date of the Mayflower’s departure on it’s voyage, see here.
For the reference to the Mayflower leaving later than planned, see references on pg. 30, here to delays caused by a sister ship that had to remain in England and that people had already been on-board for 2 months prior to departure due to these delays.
For the number of passengers aboard the Mayflower, and the proportion that were religious separatists, see here and here. Another source says there were 37 rather than 35 pilgrims. Two of those sources also make reference to the time in the Netherlands before the voyage across the Atlantic.
For the dimensions of the passenger area on the Mayflower, see here.
For the dates of the Mayflower’s voyage, see here which mentions the September 16 departure, and pg. 53, here which mentions anchoring on November 11.
For the results of disobeying the rules of the Church of England under Elizabeth I and James I, see pgs. 34 and 44 here for imprisonment, whippings, and hard labor. Elsewhere in the book, (at the end of pg. 34 and start of pg 35) there is reference to dissenters from the Church of England being executed for distributing literature, but it doesn’t say what the content of that literature was. Later on it notes that the author of the material was known afterward for being unpredictable, so it is unclear if the dissenters were executed for purely religious reasons or if they could be accused of more treasonous behavior.
For reasons the Pilgrims left the Netherlands, see a reference to economics here and comments about vice here.
For the Pilgrims seeing a forested coast when they reached the New World, see pg. 52, here.
In researching what maps the members of the Mayflower expedition used, I came across a reference on pg. 29, here suggesting that bought some maps, but I didn’t unearth the specifics. Regardless of what they used, though, given this map from Samuel Champlain made in 1613, only seven years before the Mayflower’s voyage, I think it safe to speculate that the passengers on the Mayflower had very limited information about the geography of their new home.
For John Calvin’s comment on God’s apparent efforts to encourage Noah after the Flood, see Note on Genesis 9:1 here.
For a discussion of the parallels between what God said to Adam and Eve when he created them and what He says to Noah, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 158). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For humans ruling the animals by fear rather than love due to the fall, see note on Genesis 9:1-7, here.
For mention of the difference between the promise regarding the animals to Adam and Eve and what God says to Noah, see Genesis 9:1 note here.
The Bible doesn’t say whether or not people ate meat before the Flood. The notes on Genesis 9:3, here and here admit that. John Calvin, in his note on Genesis 9:3 (see here) thinks people did eat meat earlier in history, but doesn’t think the subject matters. As for my guess, while Noah and his kin may or may not have eaten meat, I would suspect other people did. Cain and his children showed little concern for human and I expect they held animal life in even lower regard. In any case, whether people ate meat before the Flood or not, this is the first instance in the Bible of people being given permission to eat anything other than a vegetarian diet.
For the idea that the world after the Flood didn’t offer the same abundance of nutritious food as the world before it, and that this was a reason God gave Noah permission to eat meat, see the note on Genesis 9:3, here and here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 263). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For a record of volcanic ash making the world colder, and a history of known and unknown volcanoes, see the article here.
For a discussion of how plants managed to survive the Flood and re-colonize the land afterward, see the article here.
For food storage details of grains, see here.
In much of the world it would only be a temporary condition after the Flood that made food scarce. People would figure out how to grow and store it, and the need to eat animals might largely go away. Even so, one commentary also speculated that in some places after the Flood, such as the polar regions, there would never be sufficient sources of non-animal food to survive. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 263). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Beyond God’s permission to eat animals, there’s the question of whether “every moving thing” in Genesis 9:3 really refers to every type of animal or if there were some implied limits. To begin with, one commentary, in it’s notes on Genesis 9:3 (see here), suggests that phrases in the command can be understood to stop people from eating animals that have died naturally or been killed by other animals. The note on Genesis 9:3 in another commentary goes on to include people as off-limits as well since every “creeping” wouldn’t include humans who walk standing up. This idea is borne out in Genesis 9:5 where God is explicit in stating that He would require a reckoning of human blood from both animals and man, a statement that suggests human life is different than the lives of all other living things. Seventh-Day Adventist commentators further suggest that God was permitting only the eating of clean animals. Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals as those terms are used in reference to the animals who were to board the Ark in Genesis 7:2 and the animals Noah sacrificed in Genesis 8:20. They suggest that the animals men were allowed to eat was obvious, so God didn’t emphasize it to Noah, but only later defined clean and unclean animals explicitly to the the Israelites (see Leviticus 11) when the distinction had been forgotten. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association as well as Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 159). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For rules against eating blood in the ancient near east being absent other than this record in Genesis, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 159). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
Commentaries suggest the rule against eating blood had to do with at least two things. First, it prevented some cruelty to animals by stopping people from cooking animals alive, as well as, perhaps, encouraging people to kill animals in the least painful way possible. Secondly, it singled-out blood as a symbolic element of life, something repeated in the sacrificial system given to Moses (see Leviticus 17:11). This is a symbol that continued through the Old Testament and reached a climax in the sacrifice of Jesus’ blood to save all human lives. For more, see the notes on Genesis 9:4, here and here, as well as a summary here.
The rule against eating blood was repeated in the New Testament in Acts 15:20 and 29 which suggests it is still something important today according to the note on Genesis 9:4 here. In the late middle ages one Jewish Bible scholar argued that the rule against eating blood was there so that people would only eat meat when they were willing to go through the involved process required to drain all the blood, something which would keep the killing of animals to a minimum. Furthermore, in practice, one can’t drain all the blood from an animal. This suggests the only effective way to avoid eating blood is to avoid eating meat. For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 160-161). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
When Cain killed Abel, God didn’t have Cain executed. After the Flood, that situation changed and God allowed humans to execute justice against murderers according to the note on Genesis 9:6 here.
One scholar noted that there are many verbs in Hebrew that refer to killing either animals or humans, but only one that applies solely to humans, and that is the verb used in the Ten Commandments. For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 161-162). Pacific Press Publishing Association as well as footnote 302 at the bottom of page 162 that points out the theological challenges this presents for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.
One commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:5 (see here), notes that God will find the murderer out and punish them, including destroying the specific animal that kills a human. Furthermore, according to John Calvin, no one can harm another human without hurting God Himself (see note on Genesis 9:6 here). Two commentaries note that the rule against shedding human blood applies personally as well as interpersonally. People aren’t only responsible for harm they cause others, but harm they do to themselves. This includes suicide (see the note on Genesis 9:5, here) and other actions that prematurely shorten life (see note on Genesis 9:5, here).
One commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:9 here, emphasizes that God’s promise that there wouldn’t be a future worldwide Flood was made both to everyone alive and everyone who would be alive in the future.
God’s promise that there wouldn’t be another Flood covering the whole Earth doesn’t preclude local Floods. See note on Genesis 9:11, here.
For far more details about rainbows, see here.
In the notes on Genesis 9:13 here, here, and here, the authors suggest that there were rainbows before the Flood, but they had no special significance. Another scholar, in the note on Genesis 9:12 here, thinks there had always been both rain and rainbows while this one assumes rainbows existed were around before this point because they are a natural phenomenon. John Calvin in his note on Genesis 9:13 (see here) thought it was silly to believe there were no rainbows until after the Flood. On the other side of the debate, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association argues that the use of the rainbow as a sign of the promise assumes it had never been seen before. In addition, this commentary on Genesis 9:13 admits that the language supports either the view that this was the first rainbow or that this is the first time the rainbow had any meaning, but goes on to say that simple interpretation of this being the first rainbow is probably the better one. The note on Genesis 9:13, here, admits that both sides have their proponents, but states that most Christian interpreters favor the idea that the rainbow existed before the Flood. Other summaries of different opinions can be found in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers as well as the note on Genesis 9:13, here, which concludes that there would’ve been rainbows before this point unless there had been no rain.
Regarding rainbows, it’s interesting to note that they also appear in relation to God in both Ezekiel 1:28 and Revelation 4:3 as mentioned in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 925). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For a discussion of why there probably wasn’t rain before the Flood, see Episode 12 and the show notes associated with it.
For the impression that Noah was probably looking at a rainbow as God made the promise, see the comment in the note on Genesis 9:17 here.
For a comment that aftershocks can come years after a larger earthquake, see here.
For the record rainstorm, dumping about 3 inches of rain in an hour over a 24 hour period, see here.
For the historic understanding of Ararat being located in modern Armenia see Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers and Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 70). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Supporting the idea that Noah might have looked out at the Armenian highlands, see here which notes that no part of modern Armenia is lowlands, and much of what was lowlands may still have been covered by receding Flood waters.
One of the counter arguments to Armenia as the location of the Ark is based on the phrase later in Genesis 11:2 that people traveled “to the east” to get to Shinar (probably southern Mesopotamia according to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.). This comes up in the comment on Genesis 8:4, here, but it also notes that the phrase can be translated to mean either ‘from the east’ or ‘to the east’. I wonder as well, if the “east” reference is from the perspective of Moses, the author of Genesis. In any case, that the mountains of Ararat are mountains in Armenia is probably the traditional view (see the prevalence of the argument here, and the one I use until some other more compelling evidence comes up. For the historic extent of the region termed “Armenia” as well as a reference to Armenia as one of the oldest starting places of civilization, see here.
For the borders of modern Armenia showing it as a landlocked country with various border neighbors, see here. For the extent of historic Armenia, see here.
For more on the various mountain ranges crossing through Armenia, some of which might be the final resting place of the Ark, see starting on pg. 134, here.
This is all speculation, but if Noah and his family (or the generations that came later and knew just where the Ark landed) did reuse the ship, perhaps the most likely thing we’d find today would be the thick outer hull. Between the layers of pitch inside and outside (see Genesis 6:14) and any other measures used to make the hull solid and waterproof, the hull was probably the most difficult part of the ship to break down and may not have been worth the effort. Instead, for the early years of settling the new world, Noah and his family may have gotten enough wood from other parts of the Ark to meet their needs. Then, as the years went by, new forests would’ve begun to grow supplying fresh lumber closer to the settlement and making it unnecessary to harvest wood from the Ark itself. See here for a conceptual example of how the hull of Noah’s Ark might have been reinforced.
Today, people still search for Noah’s ark, but, based on the suspicion that Noah and his family would’ve wanted to re-use everything they could from the ship in starting a new settlement (see that and other reasons here, it’s plausible not much of the Ark still remains to be found. Even so, we can only speculate on whether Noah re-used the wood of the Ark to build a homestead, or even what kind of homestead he might have built. In Genesis 9:21, probably at least a few years after leaving the Ark (if nothing else, it takes a vineyard a while to produce grapes), Noah is still using a tent. This could’ve been a temporary tent in the fields, a home during the warmer part of the year, or perhaps a permanent dwelling because the weather never got so cold as to require anything more than a tent. There are many things we don’t know about what Noah did in starting a new home, but it’s perhaps reasonable to guess they’d re-use as much of the Ark as they could, and if they did, it would’ve taken sincere faith that Ark’s job was done because of God’s promise that there would never again be a worldwide Flood
For the chiseling of cisterns and use of hydraulic plaster in ancient societies, see pg. 1919-1920 here.
Genesis doesn’t say how much time passed between the day Noah left the Ark and the point at which he drank wine and became drunk, but we can make an educated guess. In his reaction, Noah mentions Ham’s son, Canaan. Canaan is listed fourth in the genealogy in Genesis 10:6. This isn’t proof that Canaan was Ham’s fourth son, but it is possible. Assuming no twins, and that Canaan was the fourth child, this puts the incident no sooner than around 8 years after leaving the Ark. If Canaan is named because he was somehow involved in Ham’s crime, it pushes the date out even further as it is reasonable to suspect that Canaan would need to be an adult to bear responsibility. This may be why the note on Genesis 9:24, here, one commentary suggests the events surrounding Noah’s drunkenness couldn’t have happened until at least 20 after the Flood, though whether they are making this assumption based on the belief that Canaan, Ham’s son, was involved in Ham’s crime is unclear. See also note on Genesis 9:20, here for another commentary suggesting Canaan might have been an adult when the drunkenness incident occurred.
According to the notes on Genesis 9:20, here and here Armenia is good at growing grapes. Another commentary, in the note on Genesis 9:20, here, while stating that one ancient source says grapes didn’t do well in Armenia, also mentions the belief among some Armenians that after leaving the Ark Noah went to Yerevan, a city that is today near the traditional Mount Ararat that has a history of vineyards and wine making. This is most likely folklore. The proximity of Yerevan to Ararat is only noteworthy if Ararat is the actual resting place of the Ark, something considered doubtful given the possibility that it formed after the Flood rather than during it (see show notes in Episode 14).
For the discovery of one of the oldest wine-making sites in the world in Armenia, see here.
For the grapes found in the Armenia cave matching the grapes still used to make wine today, see here.
For the time it takes to grow grapes from planting to the first harvest, see pg. 102 here. The source doesn’t state whether that timeline starts from planning a vine cutting or from planting a grape seed itself.
We have no way of knowing whether grape-growing after the Flood went well or poorly. On the one hand, the world had just been destroyed by the Flood, on the other hand, the world since that time has been able to grow bunches of grapes that required two men to carry it (see Numbers 13:23) and the record holder today that weighed in at 22 pounds. In addition, just 30 years of selective growing developed the Japanese Ruby Roman grape variety that grows to the size of a ping-pong ball, so Noah’s grapes could’ve been of any size.
A few scholars suggest Noah didn’t know the effects of wine, either because it hadn’t been made before this point (see the note on Genesis 9:20, here or note on Genesis 9:21, here) or because he was simply unfamiliar with what wine would do to him (see the note on Genesis 9:20 here and here as well as the notes on Genesis 9:21 here and here).
We have only speculation to work with when it comes to whether or not there was alcohol before the Flood, but considering that people throughout history all around the world have figured out ways of making alcohol, the question likely revolves around whether or not the right strain of yeast existed prior to the Flood, which I think is likely. Given that all the ingredients were present, I would guess that alcoholic grape juice probably at least existed among the people who rebelled against God and died in the Flood.
For the process of fermentation in grapes, see here and here. You might get the idea that juice ferments to wine fairly easily, but that’s not necessarily true. Grape juice spoils easily. Making wine takes a lot of work. For the importance of controlling bacteria, getting the right strain of yeast, and managing the temperature and oxygen access during fermentation, see here. For the difficulty of making wine at cold temperatures (10-15 degrees C) , see pg 126, here and the start of section 16.6.3.1 on pg 236 here. For the presence of acetic acid (vinegar) producing bacteria on grapes and the conversion of alcohol to vinegar if oxygen is allowed to mix with the wine where these bacteria are present, see comments on pgs. 242 and 244 here as well as pg. 19 here and other comments here. To get a sense of the complexity of fermenting grapes “properly,” see a modern list of considerations here.
In the Bible, its not always clear when a text is referring to unfermented grape juice and when it’s talking about fermented wine. In fact, throughout the Bible it uses the same word to refer to both types of drink (see pg 1016 here and starting end of pg. 4 here). Instead, if you can’t figure out whether grape juice or wine is intended based on the language alone, another option is to look at technology. Were people in ancient times even capable of preserving grape juice to avoid fermentation? It appears they were. From comments on pg. 28 here(see paragraph beginning “Many of the wines”) and pgs 23-30 here (as well as a summary of references starting with the last paragraph on pg. 131 here) there is some evidence that they either filtered or boiled or cooled grape juice to stop fermentation. That said, another author (see pg. 91 and onward here argues the opposite position. Regardless of who is right, even the best analysis of ancient technology and practice can only go so far. Even assuming we had ironclad proof that people in ancient times could keep grape juice from fermenting, it doesn’t mean they did. One of the problems with this debate is the likelihood of bias. (This is especially true when the book is published by a temperance society as I think it is unlikely a temperance society would publish an opinion promoting wine). With that in mind, I do think context and theology favor the idea that unfermented grape juice is considered good in the Bible while fermented wine is denounced. Take a few examples. Leviticus 10:9-11 tells the priests not to drink wine or strong drink. Proverbs 31:4-5 suggests kings shouldn’t drink wine or strong drink. Proverbs 20:1 speaks of strong drink in negative terms. Given the known effects of alcohol, I think it is reasonable to conclude that these references are probably discussing fermented, alcoholic wine. If that’s true, and you go a step further and assume that all grape juice in the Bible is fermented, it presents a conundrum both in John 2:6-11, where Jesus turns grape juice into wine, and Matthew 26:27-29, where Jesus serves the fruit of the vine to His disciples at the last supper. In the first case, would Jesus serve 120-180 gallons of alcoholic wine at a wedding given the known effects of alcohol? In the second story, would He compare His blood, and belief in His sacrifice, to something known to cause delusions? If not, then it makes sense to conclude that Jesus used unfermented grape juice on those occasions. And since the last supper happened likely around March or April (see pgs. 4 and 841-842 in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Review and Herald Publishing Association.) well after the grape harvest which happened in the fall (see pg. 36, here), it also follows that the Jews in Jesus’ day had a method to keep the juice of the “fruit of the vine” from fermenting for at least the several months between the harvest and the passover. Considering this, and setting aside debates about linguistics and technology, I think it reasonable to suggest that the Bible refers to at least two types of grape juice: the unfermented kind, and the alcoholic version. Furthermore, I doubt Jesus violated His own message given to Moses (See Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 for Jesus using the name of God to refer to Himself) or His own wisdom given to Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:29) and promoted the use of alcohol while on Earth, but rather that He gave both the people at the wedding and His disciples unfermented grape juice. For a further discussion of the theological implications of arguing alcoholic wine was used at the last supper (with the potential implication that such wine would be suitable for communion today) as claimed in the last line of pg. 380, here), see pg. 4, here.
In Exodus 12:15 the Israelites were told to remove leaven from their homes for the feast of the Passover. Pgs. 15-17 here (from a sermon published in 1859) suggests that the Hebrew word for “leaven” can also mean “yeast” (supported by Strong’s reference here) and refer to fermentation. From that idea, and some examples of Jewish traditional practice, the author suggests that the grape juice used in the Passover and the Last Supper was unfermented and not alcoholic. As stated in an earlier show note, pg. 380 in this book counters that claim and concludes that the wine in Last Supper and at that of the Passover was fermented (see last sentence on pg. 380, here). Regardless of the linguistic or traditional argument, considering that Jesus used the Passover grape juice at the Last Supper as a symbol of His blood that He would shed (see Luke 22:14-23), theologically it makes the most sense to conclude that Jesus was using unfermented juice as the symbol of His blood rather than something known to make it more difficult to think clearly.
Despite non-Biblical time lines, chapter 1 of the book here gives a summary of evidence that alcohol use goes far back into ancient history. Furthermore, given the description of the people before the Flood in Genesis 6:5 and the fact that Cain liked growing things (see Genesis 4:2-3, it is possible — or probable — that Cain’s descendants figured out how to make alcohol before the Flood. If they did, I imagine Noah would’ve known about it, making his drunkenness after the Flood more purposeful than innocent.
For Noah’s drinking coming after celebrating the grape harvest, see note on Genesis 9:20, here. If that’s the case, it would’ve had to be long enough after the grapes had been crushed for them to ferment.
For the average percent alcohol in wine, see here.
For alcohol causing the release of endorphins and raising serotonin levels, see here. For endorphins link to pleasure, see here. For serotonin’s mood-boosting effect, see here. Serotonin levels increase with even a single episode of drinking according to this article. For other health effects of drinking alcohol, see this site that has an interesting interactive graphic about how alcohol affects different parts of your body.
For the use of alcohol to help with anxiety and depression after a trauma, see study here. According to the study, when people experience trauma, endorphin levels in the brain go up. Over time, the brain adapts to this higher concentration of endorphins, leaving the potential for endorphin withdrawal when the traumatic event is over. People then may drink alcohol to release endorphins and compensate. That said, this endorphin withdrawal only lasts from hours to days according to the study. Based on the fact that the vineyard would’ve come years after the Flood (it takes at least a few years to grow grapes in a new vineyard), if Noah was using alcohol to cope, I would guess it had less to do with short-term endorphin withdrawal and was more likely related to the long-term effects of traumatic memories of the Flood and the challenges of starting over.
For the suggestion that Noah drank to excess in part because of the state of the world after the Flood, see note on Genesis 9:21, here.
John Calvin thought the point of Noah’s drunkenness is less that there had never been wine, but instead a lesson to us of the dangers of drinking and that when Noah was mocked by Ham it was just desserts for Noah’s drinking (see note on Genesis 9:21-22, here). A more positive perspective can be found in the note on Genesis 9:21, here, which points out that the story of Noah’s drunkenness also serves to encourage people who made and continue to make these same mistakes today. For all such people there is still hope, still an opportunity to repent. It emphasizes that Noah was not safe from sin or failure, but that he was righteous not because of his own works, but because of faith, the same opportunity open to us today. As an added note, lest there be doubt about Noah’s standing in the history of God’s followers, much later in the Bible Noah was still held in very high esteem as, in Ezekiel 14:12-14, God refers to three people as examples of righteousness, and Noah’s name is among them.
It’s not clear why Noah went to sleep in a tent. Perhaps when he left the Ark the weather was mild enough that he didn’t need a house for use in winter. Perhaps it was a temporary tent that was set up near the vineyard for the harvest. It might have been a tent used in traveling around to different grazing areas with flocks of sheep. This may have been the only shelter Noah needed, or it may have functioned as a temporary dwelling while away from the main settlement.
For the idea that Noah purposely exposed himself in his tent, see notes on Genesis 9:21, here and here.
There’s plenty of speculation about what exactly Ham’s crime was. One commentary (see the note on Genesis 9:22, here) gives a list of possibilities brought up by Jewish tradition including allusions to sex with Noah, castration of Noah or incantation that caused Noah to be impotent, or incest with his own mother (Noah’s wife), but then states that these ideas are all speculation (though admitting just looking at Noah while naked wouldn’t seem like enough to bring the curse pronounced later on Canaan). Another commentary (see the note on Genesis 9:22, here) suggests that the problem wasn’t that Ham looked at Noah, but that he went out and told others in order to mock him, thus showing disrespect, an idea also outlined in the note on Genesis 9:22, here and here as well as For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the parallels between what Eve did in Eden and what Ham did in looking at Noah, as well as the idea that it was more than a brief glimpse, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 164). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
For the suggestion that Ham used Noah’s drunkenness as an excuse for his own future sins, see Note on Genesis 9:22 here.
In the ESV, Noah in Genesis 9:24 calls Ham his “youngest” son, this is probably right, but there’s more than a little debate about it. For the details of that debate, see the WiderBible article here.
The fact that all Shem and Japheth did was “cover” Noah adds support to the belief that Ham’s crime was “looking” and not one of the other more extreme theories mentioned in an earlier show note. If castration or incest were the real crime being alluded to, why would covering Noah with a cloak remedy the problem? For more, see Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 164). Pacific Press Publishing Association.
The world used in Genesis 9:23 to describe how Shem and Japheth “covered” Noah is used throughout the Old Testament (152 times), including in reference to the covering of sins in Psalm 32:1.
From the not on Genesis 9, here, “Ham” means “black” while “Canaan” means “the merchantman.” That said, as one study Bible pointed out (see below) this curse from Noah doesn’t justify making slaves of people with black skin. Most of Ham’s descendants are known to be Caucasian, and the Canaanites themselves are shown that way in Egyptian paintings. For more see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 9:25, note. Zondervan.
For references to Origen and other traditions about how Canaan was involved in Ham’s crime against Noah, see notes on Genesis 9:24, here and here). There are also references to Canaan’s possible involvement in the note on Genesis 9:22, here and the note on Genesis 9:25, here. Ham’s involvement is mentioned as a possibility in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
One commentary suggests that Ham didn’t get off without punishment, but rather that his punishment came in the fact that his descendants through Canaan would be punished. Another scholar suggests the reference to Canaan emphasized the line of descent rather than the individual (see note on Genesis 9:25 in Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 108–123). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.). A different commentary (see below) thought the mention of “Canaan” might have helped the Israelites understand the origin and history of the Canaanites whose land they were to invade and conquer. For more, see For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 261–291). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
The footnote on pg 165 of Doukhan, J. B. (2016). Seventh-day Adventist International Bible Commentary (pg. 165). Pacific Press Publishing Association references a suggestion that Canaan was the result of incest between Ham and his mother. This is speculation based on Leviticus 20:10-17 where ‘uncovered…nakedness’ is used. But if this is the case, the crime and the remedy don’t match. A symbolic nakedness (if the verse is really referencing incest) would not be remedied by literally covering Noah with a blanket. Other ideas that Ham did something more than looking or mocking, as mentioned in Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7760-7769). Zondervan. Kindle Edition have the same problem as they don’t explain how literal covering by Shem and Japheth would solve symbolic nakedness. As such, I assume that Leviticus 20 references nakedness as a figure of speech where Genesis 9 refers to literal nakedness.
For the idea that Noah stated this as prophecy, and not out parental anger or favoritism, see note on Genesis 9:22, here.
You can see Noah’s curse on Canaan (and by extension, Ham) as Noah pronouncing their fate, or as a reference to where their choices were headed. This idea comes out in the note on Genesis 9:22, here. This idea also comes out in the summary of reasons Noah referenced Canaan instead of Ham in his curse in the note on Genesis 9:25, here where the commentary concludes that the most likely reasons Noah mentioned Canaan were because either (A) Canaan was the real culprit, (B) Canaan was developing the evil character of his father, or (C) because God showed Noah that the Canaanites would ultimately deserve such a curse.
Both the failure of Adam and Eve with the fruit in the Garden of Eden and the failure of Ham in mocking Noah were easy tests. These people didn’t fail because they couldn’t do something hard, they failed because they chose to do something that should have been easy to avoid.
For the word in Genesis 9:25 being translated as either “servant” or “slave” see the lexicon.
Noah’s prophecy about the descendants of Shem, Japheth, and Ham all came true, but the specifics of how they came true don’t become apparent until after the families began to spread out around the world, a story that’s a couple of episodes away.
For a reference to the idea that Shem and Japheth’s behavior suggests they were in the habit of treating their father with respect, see note on Genesis 9:22, here.
While Shem, Ham, and Japheth all passed on habits to their children, that is not to say the children had no ability to make different choices. Just as Cain and Abel came from the same parents but went in different directions, so Canaan’s descendants were still free to choose whether or not to follow God. If nowhere else, this is at least illustrated in Joshua 2, Joshua 6:22, Hebrews 11:31, and Matthew 1 where Rahab, a citizen of a Canaanite city is allowed to join the Israelites, on the basis of faith, and becomes part of the family tree of Jesus.
The link between choices (or actions), habits, character, and destiny is mentioned in a quote by Tryon Edwards, found on pgs. 114-115, here.
For the origin of the reference to the colonists aboard the Mayflower as the “Pilgrim fathers” see here.
Coming from a religious background, as time went on, the colonists in Plymouth were inclined to make laws that enforced their opinions of proper religious behavior. See for example the paragraph starting, “Transgressions of proper religious and moral behavior” here as well a later reference in that source that mentions they fined, whipped, and banished Quakers.
The comment in Genesis 9:19 makes it clear that no other humans survived the Flood to contribute to the population of the world. See note on Genesis 9:19, here.
It not necessarily obvious, but God told Noah and his sons to ‘fill the earth’ in Genesis 9:1 and this is taken as a reference to spreading out. See, for instance, the note on Genesis 11:2, here, on Genesis 11:1-4, here, and on Genesis 11:1, here. Both this commentary, in the note on Genesis 11:4, and Josephus suggest that it was perhaps known that God said people should disperse in colonies and that people were not doing that. For Josephus reference, see section 4.1, here.
Update: Minor updates to a show note on 7/6/2022.