Genesis 9

 

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. ("The Family: A Proclamation to the World," Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102)

 

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."

 

Believing those words, a child could spot easily the mistakes in reasoning made by some adults. For instance, apparently wise and powerful people blame poverty and famine on there being too many people in some parts of the earth or in all the earth. With great passion they argue for limiting births, as if that would produce human happiness. A child believing the proclamation [on the family] will know that cannot be so, even before hearing these words from the Lord through his prophet Joseph Smith:

 

"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves" (D&C 104:17).

 

A child could see that Heavenly Father would not command men and women to marry and to multiply and replenish the earth if the children they invited into mortality would deplete the earth. Since there is enough and to spare, the enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is not the birth of children.

 

It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could teach them to do if only they would ask and then obey, for they are agents unto themselves. ("The Family," Ensign, Feb. 1998, 14-15)

 

I next address the present-day challenge to the words of the Lord recorded in Genesis: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." All my life I have heard the argument that the earth is overpopulated. Much controversy surrounded a 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt. No doubt the conference accomplished much that was worthwhile. But at the very center of the debate was the socially acceptable phrase "sustainable growth." This concept is becoming increasingly popular. How cleverly Satan masked his evil designs with that phrase.

 

Few voices in the developed nations cry out in the wilderness against this coined phrase, "sustainable growth." In Forbes magazine a thoughtful editorial asserts that people are an asset, not a liability. It forthrightly declares as preposterous the broadly accepted premise that curbing population growth is essential for economic development. This editorial then states convincingly, "Free people don't 'exhaust' resources. They create them."

 

An article in U.S. News & World Report entitled "10 Billion for Dinner, Please" states that the earth is capable of producing food for a population of at least eighty billion, eight times the ten billion expected to inhabit the earth by the year 2050. One study estimates that with improved scientific methods the earth could feed as many as one thousand billion people. Those who argue for sustainable growth lack vision and faith. The Lord said, "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare." That settles the issue for me. It should settle the issue for all of us. The Lord has spoken. ("Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Ensign, Sept. 1995, 4-5)

 

 

The dominion of man over beast is no coincidence. There is no reason animals much larger than man should fear him-unless, of course, that fear was implanted by a divine Creator.

 

(John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book XII)

 

"Humans were to have dominion over the earth, but they were also expected to be wise and reverent, and to acknowledge the Lord's generosity toward them.

 

"And so, working within this relationship, men and animals together built the pyramids of Egypt and the cathedrals of Europe. They cleared roads, plowed fields and ground wheat. They strained their muscles in rice paddies and forests, camped together in the desert waiting for God's word to the Israelites, and roamed the steppes of Asia in search of food. Animals were buried with their masters in royal tombs, and toy animals are among a child's first playthings.

 

"Along the way we have learned to appreciate the other forms of life that share our planet. Animals still carry our burdens, provide milk for our children and meat for our tables. They clothe us, warm us and often inspire us.

 

"The more we learn about the world God created, the humbler we should be...

 

"The Bible speaks of man having dominion over the earth (Ps. 8:4), but the scriptures also warn us to be wise in how we exercise that dominion. It is no small thing to be made the caretaker of the Lord's house and overseer of His creations." ("Dominion Over the Earth", LDS Church News, 1996, 02/17/96)

 

God directed man to subdue the earth, which means for him to understand it, to use it, to beautify it, to enjoy it, and to have dominion over every living thing thereon. The foremost act, then, should be an appreciation of life. (December 8, 1964, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964. p. 3)

 

 

The biblical view is that all things were created for the benefit and use of man. The earth was created for the benefit and use of man. The animals were created for the benefit and use of man. In modern times, some environmentalists and animal rights activist would try and reverse this maxim. Their policies seem to suggest that man was made for the earth-that the preservation of the earth in an unused pristine state is preferable. In certain places, we are made to feel that if man is going to make so much as a footprint, he must not be allowed to proceed.

 

Similarly, some would suggest that man was made for the animals, spending inordinate resources to provide and care for the animals. Some have placed the rights of animals above the rights of their fellowmen because they do not understand the order God established from the beginning. An example of this distortion is the practice of veganism.

 

"Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.^[1][2] Vegans endeavor not to use or consume animal products of any kind.^[3] The most common reasons for becoming a vegan are an ethical commitment or moral convictions concerning animal rights, the environment, human health, and spiritual or religious concerns." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan)

 

See also commentary for D&C 49:18-19.

 

 

Question: "Is the eating of blood and food therefrom, such as blood sausage and blood pudding, forbidden by the law of the Lord today? In "Genesis 9:4, and from Paul's enjoinder against partaking of blood I deduce that this teaching is part of the everlasting covenant, and not a principle that passed with the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. Is this conclusion correct?"

 

Answer: Definitely your conclusion is correct. The blood plays a far more important part in this mortal world, whether it is the blood of human beings or the blood of other creatures, than is generally understood. It is the life-giving fluid of the mortal body; but it has in it the seeds of death as well as the sustaining power of mortal life. Its duties are many and varied, but it is not the purpose here to recount them. Notwithstanding its great importance to the physical body, it is, above all else, a mortal element.

 

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, there was no blood in their bodies. Their lives were quickened by spirit; therefore they were in a state where they could have lived forever, and so likewise could every other mortal creature. (2 Nephi 2:2-25.) When Adam fell, the change came upon all other living things and even the earth itself became mortal, and all things including the earth were redeemed from death through the atonement of Jesus Christ. (Quotes JST Gen 9:10-14, Lev. 17:10-14, and Heb. 9:19-22)

(Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 100.)

 

 

Without the Joseph Smith Translation, it would be difficult to understand exactly what is intended in the scripture. Fortunately, Joseph Smith clarifies this verse, explaining that man is responsible in how he uses animals for food:

 

And surely blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands. (JST Gen. 9:11)

 

I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong, and I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? "Just for the fun of it!" Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

 

"Take not away the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live."

 

(Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, compiled by John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], 266.)

 

 

To my mind there is no conflict between the command of God, "Thou shalt not kill," and his further command, that "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Both are right and both are just and true. But some people carp about it and condemn the Lord for what seems to them a contradiction. The contradiction is only in their minds. (From Prophet to Son: Advice of Joseph F. Smith to His Missionary Sons, compiled by Hyrum M. Smith III and Scott G. Kenney [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 68 - 69.)

 

It is part of our faith that the only atonement a murderer can make for his "sin unto death" is the shedding of his own blood, according to the fiat of the Almighty after the flood: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." But the law must be executed by the lawfully appointed officer. This is "blood atonement," so much perverted by maligners of our faith. We believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ's blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands. Capital crime committed by such an enlightened person cannot be condoned by the Redeemer's blood. For him there is "no more sacrifice for sin"; his life is forfeit, and he only can pay the penalty. There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or made part of the creed of the Latter-day Saints. (Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 3: 205.)

 

Blood for blood was the doctrine of that Scripture. Now we believe in that doctrine; that is, we believe that those who so far transgress that they imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow men, that their lives are necessary to the complete atonement; and that their execution should be such that it admits of the shedding of their blood. And it is because of this belief that the laws of Utah permit such method of execution for capital offenses as sheds the blood of the murderer. But the reputation has gone out, the slander has passed from lip to lip, it has been printed from one book into another, until the report has gone out into all the world, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the "Mormon" Church, arrogates to itself the right to take human life for apostasy from the Church, and for certain other sins. That is a slander; it is not true. We do not believe the doctrine; we do not claim for the Church that it has the right of capital punishment, or the right of executing vengeance. We do not teach nor claim that the Church has the right to assassinate men for apostasy, even though they be murderers. (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907], 2: 454.)

 

I know there are some benevolent and philanthropic people in these times who think that capital punishment ought to be abolished. Yet I think the Lord knows better than they. The law he ordained will have the best results to mankind in general. (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 1: 189.)

 

 

We speak of the book of Genesis as one of the five books of Moses. However, the text was not written by Moses, or at least, it has been modified since it came from his hand. In fact, the scribes who wrote this text lived centuries after Moses. Three different scribes are responsible for the text in Genesis. Scholars have concluded, "It is thus impossible to speak in any strict sense of the author of Genesis." It was a compilation of written and oral traditions by scribes, or redactors, named J, E, and P. (The Interpreter's Bible, ed. by G. A. Buttrick et al [New York, Abingdon Press, 1952] vol. 1, p. 439-440)

 

These scribes did not understand any priesthood other than the Aaronic. They did not fully understand covenants or temple ordinances pertaining to the higher priesthood. They had lost much of the doctrine related to the great prophet Enoch. Therefore, Joseph Smith had to change many verses to make up for doctrinal problems, especially in Genesis chapter 9.

 

Noah was to receive a new and everlasting covenant. It was new to him but it existed from everlasting to everlasting. The last recipient of the previous dispensation was Enoch. That is why the text was changed by the Prophet Joseph to read:

 

I will establish my covenant with you, which I made unto your father Enoch, concerning your seed after you. (JST Gen. 9:15)

 

Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying:

 

I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.

And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods that he would call upon the children of Noah.

And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; (Moses 7:50-52)

 

"In the King James Version there is no hint of any covenant between God and Adam or any of the patriarchs between Adam and Noah, a space of time covering some fifteen hundred years. And even the covenant that is mentioned in connection with Noah is not spoken of as a gospel or a priesthood covenant. Thus the King James Bible leaves the impression that there was no visible connection between Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham.

 

"By contrast, the JST speaks of Adam's having had the priesthood and the gospel, and it shows that these were given also to Enoch, and then to Noah, and then to Melchizedek, and then to Abraham-the same covenant, the same priesthood, the same gospel." (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible! [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990], 122.)

 

 

The inference is that the rainbow is being shown forth for the first time and that for some reason unknown to us it had not been manifest before. (The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 415.)

 

The inhabitants of the earth are asleep: they know not the day of their visitation. The Lord hath set the bow in the cloud for a sign that while it shall be seen, seed time and harvest, summer and winter shall not fail; but when it shall disappear, woe to that generation, for behold the end cometh quickly. (James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 1: 186.)

 

The Savior will not come this year, nor forty years to come. The bow has been seen in the cloud, and in that year that the bow is seen, seed time and harvest will be. But when the bow ceases to be seen, look out for a famine.

 

I have asked of the Lord concerning his coming, and while asking, the Lord gave me a sign and said: "In the days of Noah I set a bow in the heavens as a sign and token that in any year that the bow should be seen, the Lord would not come; but there should be seed time [and] harvest during that year. But whenever you see the bow withdraw, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations." (Kent P. Jackson, comp. and ed., Joseph Smith's Commentary on the Bible [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994], 113.)

 

 

Ham's wife, Egyptus, was of Canaanite descent (see Moses 7:7-8, Abr. 1:21). Before the Flood, the Canaanites were a race briefly mentioned in Moses 7:7-8. Their son, Canaan, became the father of a new race of postdiluvian Canaanites and the Egyptians. "From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land." (Abr. 1:22)

 

"The Genesis account of the drunkenness of Noah has greatly tarnished the reputation of the great prophet. Most modern rabbinical scholars are at a loss to explain why Noah would have conducted himself in such a manner: 'Noah made himself profane, degraded himself. He should have planted anything but the vine, which is the source of so much sin and crime among the children of men.' Some scholars have argued that since Noah was traditionally the first man to cultivate the vine, he could not have known of its intoxicating effects and could therefore not be blamed for his drunkenness. Certainly the incident as described in the extant version of the Old Testament does not seem to be in keeping with Noah's noble character. Elsewhere in Genesis, Noah is described as 'a just man and perfect in his generations' who 'walked with God.' (Gen. 6:9.) Peter described him as a 'preacher of righteousness.' (2 Peter 2:5.) Through modern revelation, we know that he was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, taught the same everlasting gospel that the Savior taught, and received the Melchizedek Priesthood at the unusually young age of ten under the hand of Methuselah. (D&C 107:52.) It is this same Noah who appears in the scriptures as the angel Gabriel, standing in authority second only to Michael in the priesthood hierarchy of heaven.

 

"Why would a prophet of Noah's stature plant the grapevine and prepare wine after the destruction of the Flood? It is because wine represented a symbol of redemption, a token of reconciliation with God. According to ancient Jewish tradition, the wine produced by Noah was first used to consecrate a burnt offering to the Lord so that he 'might thereby seek atonement for himself and for his sons.' By divine commandment, wine was also offered by Aaron and his sons as atonement for the sins of the Israelites. Under the law of Moses this ritual continued to be carried out periodically. (Ex. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5, 7, 10; 28:7, 14.)" (Allen J. Christensen, A Witness of Jesus Christ: The 1989 Sperry Symposium on the Old Testament, ed. by Richard D. Draper, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1990], 39.)

 

 

Applying our Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) to Noah's day makes the great prophet a sinner. The student of the Old Testament must get used to great and noble characters partaking of wine and occasionally drinking enough to become somewhat intoxicated. The theme is repeated, even among the righteous, in both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon (Judges 19:21-22; 2 Sam. 13:28; Eccl. 9:7; Mosiah 22:7-10; Moro. 6:6). In general, drunkenness is discouraged but alcohol is not completely forbidden. Even in New Testament times, the early saints partook of wine as part of their sacramental oblations (Acts 2:13, 1 Tim. 5:23). It seems to be strictly forbidden only in our generation, "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" (D&C 89:4).

 

 

It is hard to imagine that Ham's great indiscretion was to see his father's nakedness-that a curse upon him and his seed would come from such an act. Jewish traditions, not available to the scribes who wrote Genesis, would suggest that Ham's crime was quite different. They would suggest that Noah had inherited Adam's priesthood garment. They would suggest that Ham's crime was that he stole it from his father. Since the tradition was that the Father would pass the garment on to his firstborn son, Ham would have received it by inheritance. It would seem he got impatient, stealing it before Noah was ready to give it up.

 

"The idea that Adam and the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets were clothed with garments that granted them power and authority is common among the ancient traditions. Jewish tradition holds that Adam received a 'garment of light' from God while in the Garden of Eden before the Fall (Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909. 5:97, 103-4)...

 

"The tradition associated with the supernatural qualities of Adam's garment weaves its way through much of the Old Testament. The garment is said to have descended from Adam to Enoch, and from him to Methuselah, who gave it to Noah, who took it with him on the ark. Ham is accused of stealing it and giving it to his firstborn sun, Cush. (This is offered as the explanation for the difficult story in Genesis 9 where Ham finds Noah drunk and tells his brothers that he has seen his father's nakedness, for which Ham's son is cursed. It is suggested that the story is an allegorical expression for a priesthood garment and birth right struggle.)... (Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909. 1:177; Jasher 7:23-32)."

(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999], 139.)

 

The Book of Jasher tells us that "after the death of Adam, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son. And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them with him in the ark. And as they were leaving [the ark], Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers." Then Ham secretly gave the garments to his favorite son, Cush, who handed them down in the royal line. We meet this idea of the stolen garment often. We are told in one document that the garment of Adam was owned also by Noah and Ram, the brother of the biblical Jared; but the tradition is that Ham, the father of Cainan, saw the skin garment of his father, showed it to his brothers outside, made copies of it, and claimed it for himself. According to Rabbi Eliezer, Noah came to himself and saw what had happened - that Ham had stolen his garments. (The world used "nakedness" as the word; "skin garment," the same word, is simply a derived or secondary meaning. The word means "skin covering.") When Noah found out what he had done, he cursed Ham and said, "Because you grabbed it ahead of time [he was firstborn and would have received it by inheritance], Ham, you cannot have the priesthood until the end of time. Meanwhile, I will give the garment to Shem, and part of it to Japheth, but you cannot have it." Why? Because Noah had anticipated that Ham would get it illegally. To show that he was justified, Ham tried to fake it and caused a great deal of confusion thereby. In the Midrash Genesis Rabbah, Rabbi Jo .h anan says, "Shem began the good deed [they returned the garment to their father], and then Japheth came and hearkened to him; therefore, Shem was granted the tallit and Japheth the pallium" - the large cover, a cloak with clasps and buttons on the shoulder. Tallit here means a fringed garment; Rabbi Jo .h anan means that the reward of Shem, the ancestor of the Jews, "was the precept of the fringes" in the garment, "while that of Japheth," representing the Greeks, "was the pallium," the "cloak, betokening his dignity."

 

The Midrash goes on to tell us that as a reward they received from God prayer cloaks (others say it was robes of state), while Ham was denied the protection of the garment, because he had stolen it. This was the priesthood that he was trying to get illegally. (Temple and Cosmos: Beyond This Ignorant Present, edited by Don E. Norton [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992], 130 - 131.)

 

 

The Pearl of Great Price is more descriptive as to the nature of this curse (Abr. 1:21-27). Certainly, servitude and slavery have been part of the fulfillment of this cryptic declaration to Ham.

 

"The literal fulfilment of this prophecy, this curse, is a matter of historic record that should in itself give sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the volume which contains the prediction thereof before the nations concerned were born. Slavery, with all its concomitant evils, has from time immemorial been the darkest cloud upon the sky of the 'Dark Continent.' The descendants of Canaan, the negroes, have been the 'servants of servants' to all their brethren. Saracens, Arabs, Turks, and even more civilized nations have captured the sons of Ham and led them into slavery, as a matter of course. And even now, in our own enlightened age, notwithstanding the strenuous efforts that have been made, particularly by England, to rid the globe from this 'relic of barbarism,' slavery in Africa is a fact, a real fact, the whole horror of which baffles description." (Contributor, vol. 12 (November 1890-October 1891), Vol. Xii. January, 1891. No. 3. 90.)

 

 

The text implies blessings for Shem and Japheth. The greatest blessing is upon Shem and his descendants. The descendants of Ham are to be his servants and the descendants of Japheth are to dwell in his tents, meaning on his land or under his protection.

 

According to the understanding of the biblical scribes, Shem becomes the father of the chosen race, the Hebrews.

 

"Shem was the traditional ancestor of the Shemitic or Semitic races, i.e., a group of kindred nations, which includes the Arabs, the Hebrews and Phoenicians, the Aramaeans or Syrians, the Babylonians and Assyrians. The languages spoken by these various nations were closely related, and were known as the Semitic languages." (Bible Dictionary, Shem)

 

 

What are "the tents of Shem?" In the Scriptures "tent" is a term used figuratively as well as literally. The canopy of heaven is compared to a tent; as is also the Church of Christ and the city of Jerusalem. The word may therefore be applied to a country or a place of sojourn. How Japheth has dwelt "in the tents of Shem," is partly shown by the history of Palestine, Israel's original homeland, long dominated by the Saracens and Turks-both Gentile peoples-and only recently delivered from the Moslem yoke by the military power of the British, a racial blending of Japheth and Shem.

 

Japheth's remarkable blessing has also been realized in America, the Land of Joseph, which the Gentiles now possess, and where, according to the Book of Mormon, they are to assist in gathering Israel and in building the New Jerusalem. It is their privilege to share, if they will, in all the blessings of the chosen people, and to be even as the seed of Abraham.

 

The Asiatic, and especially the Israelitish countries, with North and South America-homes of God's people, ancient and modern, now inhabited by the children of Japheth-these I think, may be properly regarded as among "the tents of Shem." (Saturday Night Thoughts [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1921], 122.)