You [Trypho, a Jew] object that Noah was ordered to make a distinction between the herbs, because we do not now eat every kind of herb. Such a conclusion is inadmissible. I could easily prove, but we will not spend the time now in doing so, that every vegetable is an herb and may be eaten. Now, if we make a distinction between them and refuse to eat some of them, we do so not because they are common and unclean but because they are bitter, or poisonous or thorny.

God also blessed Noah and his sons that they might be fruitful and multiply and that fear of them should fall upon all flesh both in the sea and on dry land. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life. That means you shall eat no flesh that has not been slaughtered and whose blood, which is its life, has not been drained.

From this the eating of meat takes its beginning, not for the purpose of prompting them to gluttony. But since some of the people were about to offer sacrifices and make thanksgiving to the Lord, he grants them authority over food and obviates any anxiety about foods lest they seem to be abstaining from foods because they were not properly consecrated. I have given you them all, he says, as I did the green grass. Then, as in the case of Adam when he instructed him to abstain from the one tree while enjoying the others, so in this case too. After permitting the consumption of all foods without hesitation, he says, except you are not to eat flesh with its lifeblood in it. So what does this statement mean? It means strangled, for an animal’s blood is its soul. So since they were about to offer sacrifices in the form of animals, he is teaching them in these words that as long as the blood has been set aside for me, the flesh is for you. In doing so, however, he is intent upon resisting in advance any impulse toward homicide.

Whoever sheds someone’s blood, his own will be shed in payment for that person’s blood, because I have made the human person in God’s image. Consider, I ask you, how much fear he struck in them with that remark. He is saying even if you are not restrained from murderous hands by kinship or by a sense of fellowship of nature, and even if you thrust aside all brotherly feeling and become completely committed to a bloody murder, you must think twice. Consider the fact that the person has been created in God’s image. Mark the degree of honor accorded him by God! Think on the fact that he has received authority over all creation. Then you will give up your murderous intent. So what does he mean? If someone has committed countless murders and shed so much blood, how can he give adequate satisfaction simply by the shedding of his own blood? Do not have these thoughts, human being that you are. Instead you do well to consider in advance that you will receive an immortal body that will have the capacity to undergo constant and everlasting punishment.

God requires the blood now and in the future. He requires it now in the case of a death that he decreed for a murderer, and also a stoning with which a goring bull is to be stoned.^[1] At the end, at the time of the resurrection, God will require that animals return all they ate from the flesh of man. God said, From the hand of a man and of his brother I will require the life of a man, just as satisfaction for the blood of Abel was required from Cain, that is, whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.

For your lifeblood and your souls I will require a reckoning of every beast and of the hand of man. He compared human iniquity to beastly wickedness and considered it to be even more culpable than the wildness of the beasts. For he added, of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Actually beasts have nothing in common with us, are not united to us by any fraternal bond. If they harm a man, they harm somebody who is stranger, do not transgress the rights of nature, do not obliterate the affection of brotherhood. Therefore one who makes an attempt on his brother’s life commits a more serious sin. For this reason the Lord threatened a more severe punishment by saying of the hand of his brother I will require a reckoning of the blood of man. Is not perhaps a brother someone of a rational nature come forth from a certain womb, so that we are united by a generation from the same mother? One single nature is mother of all humanity. Therefore we are all brothers generated by one and the same mother and united by the same kinship.

Moreover, sacred Scripture, too, testifies to the fact that there will be a resurrection of the body. Indeed, God already had said to Noah after the flood, Even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: saving that flesh with blood of its life you shall not eat. And I will require your blood of your lives, at the hand of every beast I will require it. And at the hand of every man I will require the life of his brother. Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, for that blood his blood will be shed: for I made man to the image of God. How can he require the blood of men at the hand of every beast, unless he raises the bodies of those who die? For beasts will not die in the place of human beings.

God’s purpose, therefore, was to eliminate all apprehension from Noah’s thinking and for him to be quite assured that this would not happen again. He said, remember, Just as I brought on the deluge out of love, so as to put a stop to their wickedness and prevent their going to further extremes, so in this case too it is out of my love that I promise never to do it again, so that you may live free of all dread and in this way see your present life to its close. Hence he said, Behold, I make my covenant, that is, I form an agreement. Just as in human affairs when someone makes a promise he forms an agreement and gives a firm guarantee, so too the good Lord said, Behold, I make my covenant. God did not say that this massive disaster might come again to those who sin. Rather he said, Behold, I make my covenant with you and your offspring after you. See the Lord’s loving kindness: not only with your generation, he says, do I form my agreement, but also in regard to all those coming after you I give this firm guarantee.

And his Lord spoke to [Noah], as he desired that Noah hear, Because of your righteousness, a remnant was preserved and did not perish in that flood that took place. And because of your sacrifice that was from all flesh and on behalf of all flesh, I will never again bring a flood upon the earth. God thus bound himself beforehand by this promise so that even if mankind were constantly to follow the evil thoughts of their inclination, he would never again bring a flood upon them.

After these things God made a covenant with Noah and with all those who came out of the ark with him, saying, All flesh shall never again perish in the waters of a flood. I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the eternal covenant between God and all flesh that is on the earth.

Who binds up the water in the clouds?^[1] The miracle of it—that he sets something whose nature is to flow, on clouds, that he fixes it there by his word! Yet he pours out some of it on the face of the whole earth, sprinkling it to all alike in due season. He does not unleash the entire stock of water—the cleansing of Noah’s era was enough, and God most true does not forget his own covenant.

Why was Noah not blamed for falling into drunkenness? His falling was not due to intemperance but inexperience. For he was the first man^[1] to press the fruit of the vine and was ignorant not only of the power of the drink but also of the kind of change it had undergone. Because it ought to be mixed first before being drunk, he suffered drowsiness. There was nothing new about the fact that he was naked. For even now some people sleep naked, sleep having taken away their consciousness. The drunkenness, added to sleep, makes easier a defense of his nakedness.

Noah’s drunkenness was not from an excess of wine but because it had been a long time since he had drunk any wine. In the ark he had drunk no wine. Although all flesh was going to perish, Noah was not permitted to bring any wine onto the ark. During the year after the flood Noah did not drink any wine. In that first year after he left the ark, he did not plant a vineyard, for he came out of the ark on the twenty-seventh of Iyor, the time when the fruit should be starting to mature and not the time for planting a vineyard. Therefore, seeing that it was in the third year that he planted the vineyard from the grape stones that he brought with him on the ark and that it was three or even four years before they would have become a productive vineyard, there were then at least six years during which the just one had not tasted any wine.

Perhaps, on the other hand, someone might say, Why was vine dressing, source of such terrible wickedness, introduced into life? Do not idly blurt out what comes into your head, O man: vine dressing is not wicked nor is wine evil—rather, it is use of them in excess. You see, dreadful sins arise not from wine as such but from intemperate attitudes of human depravity that undermine the benefit that should naturally come from it. The reason that now after the deluge he shows you the use of wine is that you may learn that before using wine the human race had to come to grief from it. Before wine had even appeared, human history gave evidence of the extremity of sinfulness and unbridled licentiousness. This was intended to teach you that when you see the way wine is used, you will not attribute it all to wine as such but to depraved human intention bent on evil. Consider especially where wine has proved useful, and tremble, O man. For wine is used in good things by which our salvation is made real. Those who have an insight into spiritual realities understand this saying.

Woe to you that demand strong drink as soon as they rise in the morning, and linger into the night while wine inflames them!^[1] Noah drank wine and fell into a drunken stupor and became naked in the more shameful part of his body^[2] so that you may know that the mind of man is so confounded by wine and the reason of the human mind is made so dull that it does not have concern even for itself, much less for God. . . . When Lot was soused with wine, he committed incest with his daughters and did not know his mistake; from that passionate union came the Moabites and the Ammonites.

That is why the drunkenness of Noah also has been described,^[1] so that we may guard against drunkenness as much as possible, with the picture of such a fall clearly described before our eyes in Scripture. That is why, too, the Lord blessed those who covered the shame of his drunkenness. Scripture, summing everything up in one succinct verse, has said, Wine is sufficient for a man well taught, and upon his bed, he shall rest.^[2]

The chaste son could not endure looking upon the immodest nakedness of a good man; chastity covered over what drunkenness had exposed in a transgression committed in ignorance but manifest to all.

When Christ says, I am the true vine,^[1] the blood of Christ is assuredly not water but wine. We are redeemed and made alive by his blood. But in the cup it is not wine as such that redeems but his blood. This is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find this even in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament prefigured in Noah. That he drank wine was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion. Noah was made drunk by this wine, was made naked in his household, was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed, and the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son and was told abroad but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest, and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out. It is enough for us simply to embrace the understanding that Noah set forth a type of the future truth. Noah did not drink water but wine and thus expressed in advance the figure of the passion of the Lord.

After the deluge Noah drank and became drunk in his own house, and his thighs were uncovered and he was exposed in his nakedness. The elder brother came along and laughed; the younger, however, covered him up. All this is said in type of the Savior, for on the cross he had drunk of the passion: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me.^[1] He drank and was inebriated, and his thighs were laid bare—the dishonor of the cross. The older brothers, the Jews, came along and laughed; the younger, the Gentiles, covered up his ignominy.

Noah cursed Canaan, saying, Cursed be Canaan. A slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers. But what sin could Canaan have committed even if he had been right behind his father when Ham observed the nakedness of Noah? Some say that because Ham had been blessed along with those who entered the ark and came out of it, Noah did not curse Ham himself, even though his son, who was cursed, grieved him greatly. Others, however, say from the fact that Scripture says, Noah knew everything that his youngest son had done to him, it is clear that it was not Ham who observed his nakedness, for Ham was the middle son and not the youngest. For this reason they say that Canaan, the youngest, told of the nakedness of the old man. Then Ham went out and jokingly told his brothers. For this reason then, even though it might be thought that Canaan was cursed unjustly in that he did what he did in his youth, still he was cursed justly for he was not cursed in the place of another. Noah knew that Canaan would deserve the curse in his old age, or else he would not have been cursed in his youth.^[1]

Why did Ham sin and yet vengeance was declared against his son Canaan? Why was the son of Solomon punished by the breaking up of the kingdom?^[1] Why was the sin of Ahab, king of Israel, visited upon his posterity?^[2] How do we read in the sacred books, Returning the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them and Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation?^[3] The number here can be taken for all the descendants. Are these statements false? Who would say this but the most open enemy of the divine words? Then carnal generation even of the people of God of the Old Testament binds children for the sins of their parents.

In the blessings with which Noah blesses his two sons, he also curses his son’s son. For the prophetic Spirit would not curse that son himself, since he had already been blessed by God, together with the other sons of Noah. But, since the punishment of the sin was to be transmitted down to all the posterity of the son who laughed at his father’s nudity, he made the curse begin with the son’s son.

To be sure, some will say, this shows that the reason he did not curse Ham was that he had enjoyed blessing from God. Nevertheless, why is it that though Ham was the sinner, Canaan had to pay the penalty? This does not happen idly either. Ham did not endure less punishment than his son. He too felt its effects. You know well, of course, how in many cases fathers have begged to endure punishment in place of their children. Seeing their children bearing punishment proves a more grievous form of chastisement for the fathers than being subject to it themselves. Accordingly, this incident occurred so that Ham should endure greater anguish on account of his natural affection, so that God’s blessing should continue without impairment and so that his son in being the object of the curse should atone for his own sins. You see, even if in the present instance he bears the curse on account of his father’s sin, nevertheless it was likely that he was atoning for his own failings. In other words, it was not only for his father’s sin that he bore the curse but perhaps also for the purpose of his suffering a heavier penalty on his own account. After all, for proof that parents are not punished for their children, nor children for their parents, each being liable for the sins he has committed, you can find frequent statements among the inspired authors—as, for instance, when they say, The teeth of the one eating sour grapes shall be set on edge,^[1] The soul that shall die is the soul that sins,^[2] and again, Parents shall not die for their children, nor children for their parents.^[3]

When we read that he was blessed who was blessed by his father and that he was cursed who was cursed by his father, we learn above all else what great reverence to show our parents. And God gave this privilege to parents so as to arouse respect in the children. The formation of the children is, then, the prerogative of the parents. Therefore honor your father that he may bless you.

When subjection came, it was merely a condition deservedly imposed on sinful man. So, in Scripture, there is no mention of the word slave until holy Noah used it in connection with the curse on his son’s wrongdoing.^[1]

After Ham had been cursed through his one son, Noah blessed Shem and Japheth and said, May God increase Japheth, and may he dwell in the tent of Shem, and let Canaan be their slave. Japheth increased and became powerful in his inheritance in the north and in the west. And God dwelt in the tent of Abraham, the descendant of Shem, and Canaan became their slave when in the days of Joshua son of Nun, the Israelites destroyed the dwelling places of Canaan and pressed their leaders into bondage.^[1]