John Calvin Commentary Genesis 9

And God blessed Noah. From this we infer with what great fear Noah had been downcast, because God, so often and at such length, takes pains to encourage him. For when Moses here says that God blessed Noah and his sons, he does not simply mean that the favor of fruitfulness was restored to them; but that, at the same time, God's design concerning the new restitution of the world was revealed to them.

For to the blessing itself is added the voice of God by which He addresses them. We know that brute animals produce offspring in no other way than by God's blessing; but Moses here notes a privilege that belongs only to men. Therefore, so that those four men and their wives, filled with apprehension, would not doubt for what purpose they had been delivered, the Lord prescribes to them their future condition of life: namely, that they were to raise up mankind from death to life.

Thus, He not only renews the world by the same word with which He previously created it, but He also directs His word to men. He does this so that they may recover the lawful use of marriage, may know that the care of producing offspring is pleasing to Him, and may have confidence that a progeny will spring from them. This progeny is to spread through all regions of the earth, making it inhabited again, even though it had been laid waste and made a desert.

Yet He did not permit promiscuous intercourse, but newly sanctioned that law of marriage which He had previously ordained. And although God's blessing is, in some way, extended to illicit connections, so that offspring is produced from them, yet this is an impure fruitfulness; that which is lawful flows only from God's expressly declared benediction.

And the fear of you. This also mainly relates to the restoration of the world, so that sovereignty over the other animals could remain with humans. And although after the fall of man, the beasts were given new ferocity, some remnants of that dominion over them, which God had given him in the beginning, still remained.

He now also promises that the same dominion will continue. We indeed see that wild beasts violently attack people, and maul and tear many of them to pieces; and if God did not wonderfully control their fierceness, the human race would be completely destroyed. Therefore, what we have said concerning the harshness of the weather and the irregularity of the seasons also applies here.

Savage beasts indeed prevail and rage against people in various ways, and it is no wonder; for since we stubbornly exalt ourselves against God, why should not the beasts rise up against us? Nevertheless, God's providence is a secret bridle to control their violence. For, why do serpents spare us, unless it is because He represses their virulence?

Why is it that tigers, elephants, lions, bears, wolves, and countless other wild beasts do not maul, tear, and devour all humans, except that they are restrained by this subjection, as by a barrier? Therefore, it should be attributed to the special protection and guardianship of God that we remain safe.

For, if it were otherwise, what could we expect, since they seem as though born for our destruction and burn with a furious desire to harm us? Moreover, the bridle with which the Lord restrains the cruelty of wild beasts, to prevent them from attacking people, is a certain fear and dread that God has implanted in them, so that they might revere the presence of humans.

Daniel especially declares this concerning kings; namely, that they possess dominion because the Lord has put the fear and dread of them on both humans and beasts. But as the primary purpose of this fear is to protect human society, so, in proportion to the general authority God has given humans over the beasts, there exists in the greatest and the least of humans a certain hidden mark that prevents the violent cruelty of wild beasts from prevailing.

Another advantage, however, and one more far-reaching, is noted here: namely, that humans can make animals serve their own convenience and can use them in various ways, according to their desires and needs. Therefore, the fact that oxen become accustomed to bear the yoke; that the wildness of horses is so subdued that they carry a rider; that they accept the pack-saddle to bear burdens; that cows give milk and allow themselves to be milked; that sheep are mute under the hand of the shearer—all these facts are the result of this dominion, which, although greatly diminished, is nonetheless not entirely abolished.

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. The Lord proceeds further and grants animals as food to men, so that they may eat their flesh. And because Moses now first relates that this right was given to men, nearly all commentators infer that it was not lawful for man to eat flesh before the flood, but that the natural fruits of the earth were his only food.

But the argument is not sufficiently firm. For I hold to this principle: that God here does not bestow on men more than He had previously given, but only restores what had been taken away, so that they might again enter into the possession of those good things from which they had been excluded.

For since they had previously offered sacrifices to God, and were also permitted to kill wild beasts, from the hides and skins of which they might make for themselves garments and tents, I do not see what obligation should prevent them from eating flesh. But since it is of little consequence what opinion is held, I affirm nothing on the subject. We should justly consider this of greater importance: that eating the flesh of animals is granted to us by the kindness of God; that we do not seize upon what our appetite desires, as robbers do, nor tyrannically shed the innocent blood of cattle; but that we only take what is offered to us by the hand of the Lord.

We have heard what Paul says: that we are at liberty to eat what we please, only we do it with the assurance of conscience, but that he who imagines anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean (Romans 14:14). And from where has this come to man, that he should eat whatever food he pleased before God with a tranquil mind, and not with unbridled license, except from his knowing that it has been divinely delivered into his hand by the right of donation?

Therefore (as the same Paul testifies), the word of God sanctifies the creatures, so that we may purely and lawfully feed on them (1 Timothy 4:5). Let the adage be utterly rejected which says, ‘that no one can feed and refresh his body with a morsel of bread without at the same time defiling his soul.’ Therefore it is not to be doubted that the Lord designed to confirm our faith, when He expressly declares by Moses that He gave to man the free use of flesh, so that we might not eat it with a doubtful and trembling conscience. At the same time, however, He invites us to thanksgiving. For this reason also, Paul adds prayer to the word in defining the method of sanctification in the passage recently cited.

And now we must firmly retain the liberty given us by the Lord, which He designed to be recorded as on public tablets. For by this word, He addresses all the posterity of Noah and makes this gift common to all ages. And why is this done, if not so that the faithful may boldly assert their right to that which they know has proceeded from God as its Author?

For it is an insupportable tyranny when God, the Creator of all things, has laid open to us the earth and the air, so that we may take food from there as from His storehouse, for these to be shut up from us by mortal man, who is not able to create even a snail or a fly. I do not speak of external prohibition; I assert, however, that an atrocious injury is done to God when we give such license to men as to allow them to pronounce unlawful what God designs to be lawful, and to bind consciences, which the Word of God sets free, with their fictitious laws. The fact that God prohibited His ancient people from the use of unclean animals, since that exception was only temporary, is here passed over by Moses.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof. Some explain this passage this way: ‘You may not eat a limb cut off from a living animal,’ which is too insignificant. However, since there is no connecting conjunction between the two words, blood and life, I do not doubt that Moses, speaking of the life, added the word blood as an explanation, as if he meant to say that flesh is in some sense devoured with its life when it is eaten saturated with its own blood.

Therefore, life and blood do not stand for different things, but for the same; this is not because blood is in itself the life, but because the vital spirits mainly reside in the blood, it is, as far as we can perceive, a sign that represents life. And this is clearly stated so that people may feel greater horror at eating blood. For if it is a savage and barbaric thing to devour lives, or to swallow down living flesh, people reveal their brutality by eating blood.

Moreover, the purpose of this prohibition is quite clear: God intends to accustom people to gentleness through abstinence from the blood of animals. But if they should become uncontrolled and reckless in eating wild animals, they would eventually not refrain from shedding even human blood.

Yet we must remember that this restriction was part of the old law. Therefore, what Tertullian reports—that in his time it was unlawful among Christians to taste the blood of cattle—smacks of superstition. For the apostles, in commanding the Gentiles to observe this rite for a short time, did not intend to instill a moral doubt into their consciences, but only to prevent the liberty which was otherwise sacred from becoming a cause of offense to the ignorant and the weak.

And surely your blood of your lives will I require. In these words, the Lord more explicitly declares that He does not forbid the use of blood out of regard for animals themselves, but because He considers the life of humans precious, and because the sole purpose of His law is to promote common humanity among them.

I therefore think that Jerome, in rendering the particle אך (ach,) for, has done better than those who read it as an adversative disjunctive: ‘otherwise your blood will I require.’ Yet literally, it may best be translated this way: ‘And truly your blood.’ In my opinion, the whole context should be read as follows: ‘And truly your blood, which is in your lives, or which is as your lives, that is, which gives life and animates you, regarding your body, will I require: from the hand of all animals will require it; from the hand of man, from the hand, I say, of man, his brother, will I require the life of man.’ The distinction by which the Jews define four kinds of homicide is trivial; for I have explained the simple and true meaning, namely, that God values our life so highly that He will not allow murder to go unavenged.

And He stresses this with so many words, so that He may make the cruelty of those who lay violent hands on their neighbors all the more detestable. And it is a significant proof of God’s love toward us, that He undertakes the defense of our lives and declares that He will be the avenger of our death.

In saying that He will exact punishment from animals for the violated life of humans, He gives us this as an example. For if, on behalf of humans, He is angry with brute creatures who are driven by a blind impulse to feed on them, what, do we suppose, will become of the person who, unjustly, cruelly, and contrary to the sense of nature, attacks his brother?