Torah Pearls #2 – Noach (Genesis 6:9-11:32)

In this episode of The Original Torah Pearls,   Noach (6:9-11:32), the trio discusses the following questions and more: While Noah was a righteous man—relatively speaking—what spiritual disease was the rest of the world infected with?  Is doing what comes naturally the best answer for our bad selves? Does the post-flood diet really include the “all”-you-care-to eat buffet?  What was the sign of the curse and what is the sign of the covenant? When the whole earth spoke one language, what language was it? What are the implications of the 70 nations that sprung from Noah’s three sons? In closing, Gordon discusses the belief that Adam was a Talmudic scholar as well as other historical views concerning what we knew and when we knew it.

I look forward to reading your comments!

Download Torah Pearls Noach Transcript

Torah Pearls #2 - Noach (Genesis 6:9-11:32)

You are listening to The Original Torah Pearls with Nehemia Gordon, Keith Johnson, and Jono Vandor. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Jono: G’day to everybody listening in China, where they will soon be able to read Keith Johnson’s book, His Hallowed Name Revealed Again in their own language, is that correct, Keith?

Keith: Well, I hope so, but right now they can read A Prayer to Our Father in Chinese.

Jono: That’s available in Chinese already?

Keith: Yes, that’s the one that we already have translated into Chinese, and I believe, isn’t it pretty soon, Nehemia, that they’re giving out about 5,000 copies of it?

Nehemia: Right. The book already came out, as I understand it, because I know that you already received your copies. I know he’s already sent a few. I don’t know if they’ve given away the 5,000 yet, or if that’s something that’s going to happen very soon.

Jono: Okay.

Keith: Very exciting.

Nehemia: But yes, that’s scheduled for October.

Jono: Very nice. That, of course, is www.aprayertoourfather.com. Obviously, joining me this hour are Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson. Keith is obviously the author of His Hallowed Name Revealed Again. Also available is the 12-episode DVD series entitled His Hallowed Name, and they are available from www.hishallowedname.com. Keith is also the co-author, with Nehemia Gordon, of the book, A Prayer to Our Father: The Hebrew Origins of the Lord’s Prayer. And of course, Nehemia is the author of The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, both of which are available from truth2u.org, as too, is the live teaching DVD. Gentlemen welcome back to Pearls from the Torah Portion.

Nehemia: Hey, shalom.

Keith: Welcome, welcome to us.

Jono: Welcome to you. It’s great to have you guys back on, of course, last week we did do Bereshit, the first chapter of the Torah. Before we jump into it, let me just say, I just want to mention that just an hour before I am talking with you guys now. I’ve just been out in the goat shed where one of our goats has just kidded. She’s just given birth to two beautiful healthy kids, one boy, and one girl. One for meat, one for milk, and it just reminded me - it’s a beautiful thing - one of the things I love to watch is how the first thing they do is they have to learn to stand, and they do that within the first few minutes, which is amazing. They get on their feet and then the very next thing they do is they find their mother’s teat, they find the milk. I love that. Every single time, I watch one of my goats kid, I just love to watch that happen, and it’s so obvious to me, despite what so many think today in this world, that we are created by a wonderful, incredible God.

Nehemia: Wow. You’re kidding.

Keith: Jono, what do you mean...?

Nehemia: You had to see that coming.

Keith: You had a boy and a girl, and you said, one for meat, one for milk. What do you mean?

Jono: What do you mean what do I mean? I mean the boy - he’s for meat, my friend, and the girl for goat’s milk. Beautiful, beautiful goat’s milk.

Keith: You mean, eventually you’re going to eat the goat?

Jono: Yeah - what do you do with them?!

Keith: I never had them.

Jono: You’ve never had goat before? Nehemia, is not goat...

Nehemia: I’ve had goat.

Jono: Of course, you’ve had goat. Over in the Middle East, goat is the staple diet there, right?

Nehemia: Actually, no. We don’t eat a lot of goat. The only goat I’ve ever had actually was in the US from farmers who slaughtered their own goats and then offered it to me.

Jono: Really?

Nehemia: Yes. I think Arabs eat goat, but it’s not a very common Jewish food in Israel, that’s just a cultural thing.

Keith: But wait, what I’m still dealing with, so you’re going to raise this little goat that you watched stand up and you watched it go, and then eventually you’re going to eat it?

Jono: Yes.

Nehemia: He’s going to shish kebab it.

Jono: Yes. I’m going to shish kebab it first, and then I’m going to eat it, Keith.

Keith: Do you name the lamb?

Jono: Yes, I do. I name them. I name them Freezer Shelf 1, Freezer Shelf 2, Freezer Shelf 3. That’s their names. The girls get prettier names than that, but the boys, they don’t get very...

Keith: Well, that’s just amazing. All right.

Nehemia: That actually relates to the Torah portion that we’re going to talk about today.

Jono: It actually does, it really does.

Nehemia: The Torah portion of Noah because there it... can I jump right in or...?

Jono: Go on.

Nehemia: All right. There’s a section where he says that after the flood, God gives Noah and his descendants, our ancestors, all the animals, or rather the animals to eat. It seems that from Genesis, earlier on in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden, that originally all they were given to eat were fruits, and vegetables - vegetation. If you look, for example, in chapter 1 verse 29, it says, “And God said, ‘Behold I give every herb-producing seed which is upon all the face of the earth, and every tree that has in it fruit, fruit of the tree-producing seed shall be for you food.’” That’s in Genesis 1:29, and that seems pretty clear that He gave to mankind only vegetation to eat.

Then after the flood, in chapter 9 verse 3, He gives them meat to eat. He says, “Like the green herb, I give all of it to you.” Of course, that raises the question, did God actually give them everything to eat? Does that include slugs and does that include shellfish? Or is it only the greens?

Jono: This is one of the big questions. Well, this is it, because there was a distinction between clean and unclean even prior to that moment. What do you make of that?

Nehemia: Right. That’s actually a separate issue, that before the flood, He tells him to take seven of each of the clean animals, what we would call in modern terms “kosher animals”, and of the unclean or unkosher animals, He tells him to take only two. If that distinction existed before the flood, does that imply, after the flood, when He says you can eat the animals, that it’s only the clean edible animals? What does Keith see? He’s the Methodist.

Jono: What do you reckon Keith?

Nehemia: What does the pork-eating Methodist say about it?

Jono: Now, hang on, now, we have to clarify that now that you’ve thrown him under the bus, once again. Let’s just get this clear - you’re not a pork-eating Methodist, are you? Are you of the pork-eating variety?

Keith: Well, actually, when I go out to restaurants with Nehemia, he clarifies that he’s Muslim, so that’s why he’s careful about the kind of food.

Nehemia: No, I say to the waiter, I always say, “Make sure there is no pork in any of his food,” referring to Keith, “because he is a Muslim.” He always hates that. I’m saying that jokingly, obviously.

Jono: Obviously.

Keith: So I know we are going to talk about the food, but I can hardly discuss the food until I talk about the flood.

Nehemia: You guys brought up the kid.

Jono: Listen, I’ve got to backtrack, though, let’s just put that in our pocket for a second because obviously, last week we were talking about creation, we were talking about Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden. We didn’t get to Cain and Abel but obviously that happened, there’s Lamech there. And Keith, very quickly, in a nutshell, because I really want you to at least address this verse, Genesis, Bereshit 4:26, “Then men began to call upon the name of Yehovah.” Just really quickly, in a nutshell, what does that mean to you?

Keith: To me, it seems pretty clear. The thing that’s exciting to me about it is way back in chapter 4, that statement. The thing that’s exciting about it for me and this is just one of my little weird, quirky little things that happened, is that when you start reading in Hebrew, when you get to this particular section there’s this theme that takes place from Chapter 4 and then into Chapter 5. Normally, what I used to do, “Oh, they’re talking here about the family tree, let’s quickly move beyond that and then let’s go to the next thing.” Sometimes you didn’t want to spend much time in the names, but it is very interesting that one of the names of the sons of Noah is “Name,” which is Shem. You go from this statement here, calling upon the Shem, because that’s what the word “name” means - that’s the Hebrew word - you call upon the Shem, and then it says, from Adam to Noah, then you get to Noah and you’ve got this son who’s named, “Name” - Shem. Then you go through the flood and then again once we get to this issue of the discussion in 6, 7, 8, and 9, then we have these men who are going to make a shem for themselves, that’s something that happened. Then right after that, we talk again about the line of Shem, so name is important. Then we get to 12 and the Father says to Abraham “I shall make a shem for you,” “I shall make a name for you.” So anytime I see the word “name” connected to the idea of calling upon the Shem, the name of Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei, it catches my attention.

Jono: Yes. Certainly, so there is an underlying theme in as far as Shem is concerned. It goes on from there into chapter 6. Of course, it begins with the Nephilim, and if we start with the Nephilim, we’re never going to get off it. I know many people’s lives have been consumed by the study of these few verses, and there’s some outrageous stuff out there on the Nephilim. And so we’re in Noach. Let me know if I get this one right, “Ve-No’ach matza chen be’enei Yehovah.”

Nehemia: Amen.

Jono: Amen. Verse 8. “Noah found grace in the eyes of Yehovah.”

Keith: Why did he find grace? Let’s let the context speak. Let’s ask my Jewish friend, why did he find grace, Nehemia? What was it that caused him to find grace?

Nehemia: Well, I guess we have to ask what grace is, but leaving that huge topic aside, it tells you in the next verse that he was a righteous man. Then it says, “Tamim hayah be-dorotav,” he was perfect in his generations, and that’s a very interesting statement. On the one hand, he was perfect, and on the other hand, it has that limitation on his perfection - “He was perfect in his generation.” Some of the commentators have said that he wasn’t actually all that perfect, but for that period of time, when people were so wicked and so evil, he was, by comparison, a righteous man, and hence it says, “in his generation,” or generations really. So he was righteous in that context, I guess.

Jono: Keith?

Keith: Yes. The statement that catches my attention is, “Noah found favor.” Okay, so then I think, “Why did Noah find favor”? And it says, “Noah was a righteous man and he was blameless among the people,” perfect, okay. Then there’s this wonderful statement that just jumps off the page, and it says, “And he walked with Elohim,” and he walked with God. The build-up for me is sort of starting backward, being the Christian who questions - can you find grace in the Tanakh? He found grace. Why? He was righteous. What made him righteous and perfect? He walked with God.

Then I start with “walking with God,” and I say when I walk with God, what happens to me? My life changes, I begin to make an adjustment that’s different than what maybe some of the other people that are around me, maybe they’re not walking with God, and then what does that do? That gives me grace. Why? Because, in other words, there are three things that are happening: he finds favor, he’s righteous, he’s perfect, he walked with God.

Then after that, there’s this statement about these three sons, so I’m glad that we started there because that’s where I’ve been spending my time thinking about Noah personally, having this relationship with God, and then this wonderful thing happened in the midst of all of this wickedness. It isn’t just Noah. He said “Noah, here’s what you’re going to do,” and He says, “and you can take your sons and your sons’ wives.” We know they certainly weren’t in the same place that Noah was, but that they were a part of his household, which kind of encouraged me this week when I was reading this portion.

Jono: Certainly. And as you say, Keith, “he walked with God”. Nehemia, can I ask - I mean you’ve already mentioned that there’s a distinction between clean and unclean. There’s an understanding that there is clean and unclean, and we also see from this that there is “a walk with God”. I don’t think it means that they would go strolling in the afternoon together, but there was a walk with God. Therefore, there’s some sense of loyalty and some sense of obedience. There must be some kind of code of instruction; is that there?

Nehemia: There are actually two historical opinions about this question that you’re asking, and really, this comes down to, did the forefathers before Moses know the commandments that were later given in Torah? The one opinion, which is the classical Rabbinical approach, is to say that in fact, the entire Torah - and they say, including the Oral Law - was revealed to Adam already, and then transmitted from Adam to his descendants. They point out, rightfully so, that it talks about - and we’ll get to this, I guess, next week - it talks about Abraham keeping the commandments, the instructions and the judgments of God.

What are those commandments, instructions, and judgments? Presumably, that’s what is later revealed through Moses. Does that mean, though, that everything was revealed? The other approach says that God actually revealed His commandments gradually, culminating with Moses, because mankind couldn’t handle it all at once. Again, I’m not saying that’s my opinion, but that’s one of the historical opinions. He started off with Adam, giving him certain commandments, and then He revealed more of it to Noah and more of it to Abraham and more of it to Isaac and more of it to Jacob, and then it culminated with Moses, where He revealed the perfection of His instruction in the Torah.

Now, which one it is, I guess we could argue about that from now until kingdom come, but what I think is clear is that there’s definitely an obedience that Noah has and a righteousness, and even though everybody else we’re hearing is evil. There’s an interesting statement here, if I can jump to it...

Jono: Please.

Nehemia: It appears twice, once before the flood and once after the flood. It says in Chapter 6 verse 5, “And Yehovah saw that the evil of man was great in the land,” then it says, “ve-chol yetzer machshavot libo rak rah kol ha-yom.” I’m not sure how that’s translated in your English, but what it literally says is “The entire yetzer of the thought of his heart was only evil all day long.” Yetzer is a word that usually is understood, in Jewish tradition, as an inclination. “The inclination of the thought of his heart was only evil all day long.” But if you look at that word, yatzar is to create, and so Hebrew language experts have said that yetzer actually is the biblical Hebrew way of saying “nature.” So the correct translation would be, “And the nature of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day long.”

Chapter 8 verse 21 repeats that after the flood, it says that God says He’s not going to curse the land anymore because of man, “ki yezter lev ha’adam rah mi-ne’urav” – “because the nature,” again Yetzer, “of the heart of man is evil from his youth.”

Jono: From his youth, yeah.

Nehemia: What I understand this to mean is that on the one hand, man, in a way, inherently has this natural tendency to want to do evil, and what God gives us in the Torah, and walking with God, is the instruction of how to overcome that evil nature that we have. Because our nature is to see something we want and just take it - to steal and to covet and to do all kinds of bad things. The way I look at it is this instruction that God has given us is the guideline - the Torah He’s given us are these guidelines for how to overcome that evil nature that we have so that we can walk with God.

Keith: When I read it, we have this obvious entering of man and woman being able to understand both good and evil from taking from the tree, and then obviously at that point something happens. Before that, I guess obviously it was there... One other thing that caught my attention was when Nehemia says that the yetzer, I thought, “So how is it that we can get out of this way by walking with God, who is the Yotzer.” What does it mean to be a yotzer, Nehemia?”

Nehemia: He’s the Creator. He’s the one who creates our nature.

Keith: Exactly. He’s the one who creates our nature.

Nehemia: By the way, the King James has “The thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Or excuse me, “And every imagination of the thoughts of his heart,” So they translate, yetzer there as “imagination,” but actually it’s “the nature of the thoughts of his heart.”

Keith: So what I say is this is the yetzer problem - let’s deal with Yotzer. Let’s hang around with the Yotzer and walk with Him as much as we can.

Nehemia: Overcome our own yetzer?

Keith: Yotzer, I walk with the Yotzer and He can handle my yetzer.

Jono: Okay, now, I’m confused.

Nehemia: Yetzer is that word they’re translating as “imagination,” but it really means, “The nature of his thoughts was evil all day long,” or “from his youth,” in the other passage, in 8:21. What Keith is saying is that God is our Yotzer, He’s the one who creates us.

Jono: Right.

Nehemia: The way to get over your yetzer, your natural evil, is to hang out with the Yotzer, the Creator who created you.

Jono: Sure.

Keith: What you’re supposed to do down there, you’re supposed to go and tell your kids that, “you have a yetzer problem, but deal with the Yotzer. Be like Noah, walk with the Yotzer and then the yetzer gets taken care of.”

Nehemia: For me, what’s important here is that what comes natural to us isn’t necessarily what’s good.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: One of the things we hear in modern society is, “People were born that way, that’s just what they naturally want to do.” Let’s be honest here - you might have to cut this out of the interview - but let’s be honest here, what every man wants to do is to have sex with as many women as possible, that’s the truth. But God also created us with the ability to choose good over evil. So even though our nature may be to be like chimpanzees - yeah, the chimpanzee or the gorilla, he has ten women; he wants his reproduction to be passed on to all the females of the tribe. But God has given us the ability to choose good and recognize that the thoughts that we naturally have aren’t necessarily good thoughts and to overcome those thoughts. That’s what it means for me to walk with God - is to say, “This may be what I want to do, but I’ve got to do what He instructs me to do and not necessarily what I want to do.”

Jono: Right, right.

Nehemia: I’ve got to try and make what He instructs me to do what I want, even though my natural inclination might be to want to do something else.

Keith: So Nehemia said that every man wants to have sex with women. Well, there are a whole lot of men who say, no, they want to have sex with other men...

Nehemia: Oh!

Keith: No, you want to bring it up.

Nehemia: That’s too controversial. Don’t talk about that! [laughing]

Keith: No, I’m saying - so that becomes another issue and it becomes, “This is what I want. This is the inclination of my heart.” The reason that I bring this up, this little wordplay issue, is not to be cute so much, but again, the statement we’re talking about here - why did Noah find grace? Did Noah find grace so he could not walk with God and do whatever he wants because he found grace? The Christian thought is, “This is what I do and this is why I do it, but I have grace.” But if we read the verse, it says he found grace. Why? Because he was righteous and he was perfect. Why? Because he walked with God, and walking with the Yotzer, walking with God, it causes there to be change in your life internally and externally. Whether I want to do what Nehemia mentioned with all women or whether I want to do it with all men. So here becomes the issue. What does it mean for me to walk with God? I’m going to want to be molded to what God’s Torah, His law, His commands, His justice, His statutes, that which gives me life. I’m going to be molded to that by my walk with Him.

Jono: But it’s interesting, Nehemia, that you bring up sex, because the very first commandment that we’re given in the last Torah portion, the very first commandment given to men, if I remember correctly is, be fruitful and multiply, right? We see after the flood when they come off the ark, the very first commandment they’re given is to be fruitful and multiply. And so it is expected of them to do so, and yet, we also see, shortly after that, we read about what might be regarded as a sexual sin from Noah’s son, Ham.

Nehemia: What you’re talking about appears in chapter 9 in verses 21 and 22. It talks about how Noah planted a vineyard. It says, “And he drank from the wine and he became drunk.” It says, “and he uncovered himself in the midst of his tent.” And verse 22, “And Cham,” or Ham, as you say, “And Cham the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father,” meaning Noah, “and he told his two brothers outside.” Then afterwards, what happened is that Noah wakes up from his drunkenness and he curses Cham. The question that’s been asked for ages - is what was Ham’s sin? That he saw his father naked? Or, it was suggested already in ancient times, that this is actually what we call a euphemism. A euphemism is a way of saying a brutal thing, nicely. Instead of saying somebody died, you’d say he passed away.

Jono: Sure.

Nehemia: Here, what’s been suggested is that the euphemism is that “he saw his father’s nakedness,” actually, it means that he had sex with his father. As shocking as that is, if you look in Leviticus 20 verses 17, that exact expression appears when it describes incest over there in Leviticus 20. It uses the exact phrase, “to see somebody’s nakedness,” meaning to have sex with them.

Jono: Right. So it is certainly a possibility that Cham sexually interfered with Noah when he was...

Nehemia: Let’s say it straight out - that Cham raped Noah when he was drunk. So Scripture not wanting to say something so horrific uses this euphemism, “He saw his nakedness,” which in other places means to have sex with somebody.

Jono: Sure. So it’s certainly a possibility.

Keith: And here I thought today’s portion was going to be about the flood, and that we were going to be talking about this wonderful story. You guys keep jumping to these radical things. I don’t know if I’m going to be able to be on this radio show with you guys. I have my children...

Nehemia: We’re talking Torah here. If you’re not mature enough to deal with Torah then...

Keith: I’ve got my kids listening to the Torah portion.

Nehemia: We could deal with the cute little stories if you want.

Keith: When can we go back to the rainbow and the boat and the fact that they landed over at Mount Ararat?

Nehemia: He wants the rainbow. He can’t get away from the rainbow.

Keith: I want to talk about the Chinese who found it at Mount Ararat.

Nehemia: It’s my understanding that the archaeologists, at least, claim that’s actually a Mongolian fortress. But I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

Jono: Yes, I’m pretty sure that one is entirely a ...

Keith: I so much like it better this way.

Nehemia: Keith’s a believer. He wants to believe.

Keith: I want to believe that the ark is at Mount Ararat. Listen, so here’s my little feed - you two stay on the sex and males and what happened with Noah.

Nehemia: It’s in the Torah portion. We didn’t make it up!

Keith: What I want to talk about is this idea that God said, “Okay, that’s it, I’ve had enough. I’m going to wipe out the earth. I’m going to wipe out the people.” And then “but.” So here’s the ‘but’. “But Noah found favor.” Okay, so we talked about that. What’s so powerful to me about this idea is that even in the midst... now, we talk about how corrupt the world is, it’s bad, it’s full of Hamas - isn’t that the word? Violence.

Nehemia: That is the word.

Keith: Hamas.

Nehemia: Honestly, the word for violence there is the same word for the Palestinian terror organization that rules Gaza, Hamas.

Keith: There’s hamas everywhere and there’s violence everywhere, but Noah found favor. And then what does the Father do in that situation? He sets up this whole system of dealing with the remnant, the remnant being Noah and those that are with him. Why I think that’s interesting is that sometimes I wonder what it is about our present situation that sometimes makes people throw their hands up in the air and say, “It’s all bad, it’s all terrible. It’s all going to go to hell in a handbasket or Gehenna or wherever.”

Nehemia: He said a cuss word. H-E-L-L.

Keith: But Noah found favor. And I ask myself the question - this is what happened for me with the Torah portion - how do I get them to write this: “But Keith found favor, but Nehemia found favor, but Jono found favor and everyone that’s listening found favor?” Again, this idea that our Father in heaven would look at the situation, and even... we have other themes that would take place in the Tanakh where He says, “That’s it, but,” and the ‘but’ being, “Is there someone in the land? Can I find someone in the land that will take Tanakh serious and that will live by it, et cetera,” and what will God do in this and that?

In this situation, He said, “Build a boat. When you’re done building the boat bring your family, put them in the boat, bring the clean and the unclean, and I’m going to start this whole thing all over again.” Again, of course, one of the most wonderful things that I love about the whole portion is He says, “Anytime I see the bow, the rainbow, and I will be reminded of the covenant.” The covenant is so powerful that it’s hard for me not to get...

Jono: Yes.

Nehemia: The covenant is essentially grace. Because what the covenant means is even if you guys deserve to be wiped out, I’m not going to wipe you out like I did that one time.

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: I think maybe He had to do that to say, “Look, this is the possibility. I can wipe out every single human being except for those eight people who deserve to be saved, but I’m not going to do that even if you are worthy of it.” I mean, wow. If that’s not grace, then what is it?

Keith: The reason this excites me, again, is that to this very day, when we talk about the importance of the covenant and that there is a covenant and that there’s a sign of the covenant, as we go longer we’re going to find out more sections that talk about what the sign of the covenant is and why it is so important, is that here when I see a rainbow... You mean to say that when the Father sees a rainbow, He says, “I will look upon it and it will remind Me that there is a covenant”? How amazing is this?! How powerful, and how beautiful is this that we can literally look up in the sky and see the sign of the covenant that He gave, that we’re living under it today. That’s pretty darn creative, that’s pretty darn creative.

Jono: It’s spectacular and every time you see one, you have to point it out to whoever is around you, “Hey, look, check it out. It’s a rainbow!” You never get tired of them.

Keith: And of course, we always take it and we make it into something else. So for the… they say, “There’s a pot of gold on the other hand and there’s a little man with a green hat.”

Jono: A leprechaun.

Keith: Then there’s another group that takes the rainbow and says, “That’s going to be the sign of our covenant that says it’s okay to do what you want, with whoever you want to do it.” The point being that we’re going to take these things and make them what we want them to be. But what was it originally? What is that rainbow supposed to mean when we see it? It’s a pretty powerful statement. All the way back to the original discussion, because Noah found favor, because he was righteous and perfect, and because he walked with God - look, there’s this sign of the covenant.” Excuse my excitement, but I get pretty excited about that. Now, we can get back to the harder issue.

Jono: When I was reading this, and this is particularly... I’m looking at chapter 8 verse 22 and 23. It says, “While the earth remains,” I’m pretty sure that applies now. “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night shall not cease.” That’s a very relevant couple of verses to take note of today, particularly, in this day and age when the climate change or global warming and all those sorts of things are being plugged so prevalently in the media. Here we see that “summer and winter, heat and cold shall not cease.” Your thoughts, Nehemia?

Nehemia: Well, I mean, He’s not saying if it’s going to be a long winter or a short winter, He’s just saying the cycles of nature are going to continue. Evidently, at the time of the flood, and possibly before the flood, those cycles were interrupted. One of the things that’s really interesting is when Adam sins, it says, “God curses the ground because of his sin,” and then that curse is actually removed in the course of the flood. After the flood, God says, “I will no longer curse the ground because of the man,” and so that curse is then removed. I guess, that the manifestation, and that’s in verse 21, actually - the verse just before you read, it says, “And Yehovah said to His heart ‘I will no longer curse the ground because of the man,’” and it says “because the nature of the heart of man is evil from his youth, I will no longer smite everything that lives as I have done.” Then it says, that verse that you read in verse 22, “these cycles of nature will continue.” It sounds to me, and I guess we don’t know for sure, but it sounds to me like the way the land was cursed is that they might have a year where there was no winter or there was no summer, and it made it very difficult to live off of agriculture if you don’t have regular annual cycles.

Jono: Sure.

Nehemia: One of the interesting things in this portion, which I think most people read and skip over because it’s just a bunch of names, is chapter 10. But if you count those names - these are all the descendants of Noah - if you count all the descendants of Noah starting after the generation of Shem, Cham, and Japheth, the three sons, you find out that his three sons produced 70 different nations, which is an interesting number - 70. There’s a verse in Deuteronomy 32 chapter 8, which is part of the song of Moses, and it says “When the Most High gave for inheritance the nations, when He divided up the sons of Adam, He placed borders for the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.” That’s a very mysterious statement. What does that mean - “He divided up all mankind according to the number of the children of Israel”? Well, the number of children of Israel that came down to Egypt was 70, and evidently, this is a reference to the 70 nations that came out of the descendants of Noah, out of Shem, Cham, and Japheth in chapter 10.

Jono: That is fascinating. I didn’t know that.

Nehemia: Yeah, so unless you go through and count, you’d never come up with that, I guess.

Keith: No, you have to understand something - Nehemia has left the farm completely. He’s been dealing in numbers lately, and it’s been shocking.

Nehemia: No, this is in Deuteronomy 32:8. I’m not making it up. It’s right there.

Keith: He’s been standing up and talking about numbers. Now, he’s come up with another number. No, I love what he’s talking about here because again, we joke with each other, Keith’s the number guy, but lately, Nehemia...

Nehemia: Well, you make up numbers that aren’t actually there in Scripture.

Keith: The numbers are there Nehemia, I don’t understand.

Nehemia: I actually take numbers that I found in Scripture.

Jono: Oh dear. So, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these, the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” That is the last verse of chapter 10, that “the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Then we go into the story of the Tower of Babel, “Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.” Is that one... now if I remember correctly, is that one “davar”?

Nehemia: Yes, so “davar” is an interesting word. It can mean word, it can mean matter, thing. It often is describing the Word of God, that’s the word it’ll use, the word “davar.” I would translate... it says here, “And the whole earth was safah achat,” one, literally, lip, and that means language, “U-devarim achadim,” and a singular dvarim, matters. Meaning, they were all on the same page, I guess, is what that means.

Jono: Sure.

Nehemia: You had the entire mankind, at this time, as one big tribe, is basically what it’s saying, and they all spoke the same language. Basically, chapter 10 gives you what all those nations are, but then chapter 11 explains how and under what circumstances those languages and nations were divided into the 70.

Jono: So they get together and they say, “Listen, in our history, there were the reports of that whopping great flood that we had, which was no fun. I’ll tell you what, how about we get together and we build a tower so that we’re safe should that ever happen again?” Do you think that’s possibly what they had in mind?

Nehemia: Well, it says what they wanted to do there was to make a name for themselves. They want to build up their own name and the way they want to do that was by building a building that would reach all the way up to the heavens.

Jono: So it’s rather than protect them from another flood, it’s perhaps a monument?

Nehemia: Well, it doesn’t actually say that. It says that they wanted to get up to heaven. Their understanding is that God is up in heaven and I guess they took that literally to mean He’s up in the sky and so they wanted to get up there so they could be at the level of God.

Jono: They wanted to ascend. Keith, what do you reckon?

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: Again, this was what was so interesting is that sandwiched in chapter 11, starting in 10 verse 20, and then in 11 verse 10, sandwiched in between these two discussions of the line of Shem is this idea of the Tower of Babel, Bavel, and the idea that they’re going to make a name for themselves. But sandwiched between this is Shem, who’s the one that says, “And these were the sons also born unto Shem”, and then again, “this is the account of Shem.” It seems it’s just in the middle of this, you have this one little section.

Now, what I think is so interesting for me when I read it, when they say they’re going to make a name for themselves, and we discussed this - Nehemia and I were over in South Africa talking about this idea that people are constantly saying, “Let’s do this and in this way we will make a name for ourselves. We will make a name for ourselves…” And even today, that’s still what’s happening. People are saying, “How can I make a name for myself?” Here we have the one most awesome name, the name that God has given for us, that’s been revealed to us. Instead of us wanting to know that name, we set that name aside and say, “No, it’s too holy, it’s too powerful, it’s too profound, let’s just make a name for ourselves.” And so we have all of these denominations and all of these religious movements and all these branches of spiritual community saying, “let’s stay away from the name, but let’s make a name.”

Then in this particular message, we have Shem, which means again, the Hebrew word “name.” And then again, it talks about from Shem to Abram, and I know we’re going to deal with that in the next portion, but I just think it’s interesting where that’s actually placed. Again today, that today that’s still the case - people saying, “I want to make a name for myself,” or, “We want to make a name for ourselves.”

Nehemia: In other words, instead of building up God’s name, they want to build up their own name.

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: There’s a famous verse in Zephaniah 3:9, where it’s talking about the end times, it says, “For then I will turn to the people, safah berurah,” clear language, “they will all call upon the name of Yehovah to serve him with one accord.”

Jono: Sure.

Nehemia: What they did in the Tower of Babel is they were serving themselves to build up their own name, to call upon their own name with one accord. So He mixed up their languages, and what He’s saying is He’s going to undo the curse of Babel and let us all have the same language once again. The next time, it won’t be to call upon our own name and to serve ourselves but to call upon His name to serve Him with that one language. That’s like an undoing of the curse of Babel.

Jono: Amen. There is another name that does stand out in chapter 10 from verse 8, “Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before Yehovah; therefore it was said, ‘Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before Yehovah.’” Nehemia, what are your thoughts there?

Nehemia: Nimrod presumably, and all of these names in chapter 10, are words that come from Hebrew, because that was the original language. The name Nimrod, specifically, Nimrod means “let us rebel.” So people have understood that he was actually the leader of that rebellion at the Tower of Babylon, that it wasn’t just building a tower to make their own name, it was actually to rebel against God. That’s what this name Nimrod is about, it’s let us rebel. So he led that rebellion, possibly.

Keith: I’d like to ask a question. Different people make these really big statements. Nehemia, you’re saying that Hebrew was the original language?

Nehemia: Amen.

Keith: What makes you say that?

Nehemia: Well, if you look at all the names, up until God mixed up the languages, up until the Tower of Babel, if you look at all those names, those are names that have Hebrew significance. Let’s just take the name Noah - he tells us the meaning of the name Noah. It’s in chapter 5, verse 29, it says, “He called his name Noah, saying that this one will comfort us from our deeds and from the sorrow of our hands from the land that Yehovah has cursed.” The name is Noach, and he’s called that because it says, “yenachamenu,” he will comfort us. That’s a play on words that only works in Hebrew.

If you have one example like that, you say, “Okay, it’s a coincidence,” but you have basically all of these names, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth. These are all names that have Hebrew significance that’s indicated in the passage, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. If it were some other language as the first language, then you wouldn’t find a correspondence between the name and the significance of the name.

Another example would be the three sons of Noah are Shem, Cham, and Yefet. Those are three words in Hebrew. Shem, as you mentioned, means, “name.” Cham means, “hot,” and so he probably was a hothead. Yefet, it means “beautiful,” but it also means “great.” Then he’s actually part of the curse of Cham includes a statement about Yefet, that Yefet will be made great. Now, if English were the original language, he wouldn’t have been called Yefet, he would have been called Greaty or Biggy. He would’ve had a name that had significance in English or some other language. The fact that these names, all of them, before the Tower of Babel, correspond to Hebrew words, tells me that Hebrew was the original language.

Keith: So what do you think - this is a quick little diversion - but do you think that the people of God continued to read Hebrew even into the first century? Do you think that Hebrew was something that they...?

Nehemia: Hebrew remained a spoken language we know at least until the 3rd century AD.

Keith: I’ve got a book here that says it was Aramaic. What are you talking about?

Nehemia: Well, actually, in the book A Prayer to Our Father, we bring an account where it talks about how the rabbis were discussing a certain word in the Bible, and they didn’t know what that word was until they heard the rabbi’s maidservant using the word. What happened is, as Israel lost its sovereignty and was increasingly conquered and dominated by the Romans, in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, Greek and Aramaic were the dominant languages. Hebrew went into a decline.

By the 3rd century, even the intellectual elite, who were the rabbis, were able to speak Hebrew as a literary language, like priests at the Vatican, but they didn’t speak it as their natural language. The only ones who spoke it were these peasants. That’s why the maidservant, who comes from the lowest strata of society, she’s the one who speaks the language and it’s not surprising. If you went to, say, Wales and were looking for somebody who spoke, or let’s say Gaelic and you’re looking for somebody who spoke Gaelic as their native tongue in Ireland, you wouldn’t find it at the universities, where the intellectual elite are, you would find it in the remote fishing villages, you’d find old men who speak it. That’s basically the equivalent of the maidservant still speaking it in the 3rd century.

What’s interesting is that the first Hebrew grammar ever written was by a man named Eli Ben Judah, the Nazirite, who says when he writes his grammar, that he spent a lot of time sitting in the streets and public squares of Tiberias listening to the language of the people to check out the grammatical rules that he had written in his book. Because he didn’t speak Hebrew as a native speaker, but the Jewish peasants of Tiberias, some of them still spoke Hebrew, and so he was listening in to that spoken Hebrew. That’s in the 10th century AD. So it’s not that Hebrew was spoken everywhere - the point is that you had little pockets of people who were continuing to speak Hebrew as late as the 10th century. By and large, it was a dead language. But it was a literary language.

Keith: I want to talk about the 1st century.

Nehemia: If they’re still speaking it in the 10th century, then obviously in the first century they were speaking it, because that’s 900 years earlier.

Keith: You think in the 1st century they still spoke Hebrew?

Nehemia: Well, again, if they’re speaking it in the 10th century then they must be speaking it in the 1st century. That’s obvious.

Keith: Just answer the question, Nehemia.

Nehemia: Yes, of course, they spoke Hebrew in the 1st century.

Keith: Toda rabah.

Nehemia: Look, the fact that you have the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of them are original works, they’re not just copies of earlier works, they’re original books that are written in Hebrew. There’s a book called The War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness, which isn’t part of the Bible, it’s one of the writings of the Dead Sea scrolls that was original to that group, and that’s written in Hebrew. Well, why would they write that in Hebrew if they didn’t speak Hebrew?

In addition, in the 2nd century you have letters that are written by Bar Kokhba, who is this Jewish rebel leader against the Romans. He writes it in Hebrew and he uses slang, the type of slang you would only have in a spoken language.

What all of this shows is that not only were they speaking Hebrew in the 1st century, they were speaking Hebrew long after the 1st century. That didn’t mean everybody spoke Hebrew, because again if you go back to Wales or Ireland, you’ll find that most people speak English, and you’ll only find little pockets of Gaelic. If you went back a few hundred years, you might find only the farmers speak Gaelic and the people in the castle speak English. That’s probably how the situation was in the 1st century – that the intellectual elites probably did speak amongst themselves Aramaic and some of them may have spoken Greek, but if you went to the farmers, the shepherds, the fishermen - those are the people who would be speaking Hebrew.

Jono: Sure.

Keith: How about the carpenter?

Nehemia: The carpenter would be speaking Hebrew. Now, this wouldn’t have been the same Hebrew of Isaiah, because language changes over time. If you look, for example, in the Mishnah, which was written at the beginning of the 3rd century, in Hebrew, you might find that 10 or 20 percent of the words are Aramaic words. Another 5 to 10 percent are Greek words. But the language is still Hebrew.

Keith: Jono?

Nehemia: The grammar is Hebrew and the structure is Hebrew that incorporates these foreign words as the foreign languages become more and more influential.

Jono: Yes, Keith?

Keith: Jono, the reason I’m bringing this up because it’s in line with the Torah portion, so don’t get nervous here, okay? Jono?

Jono: Yes. I’m with you, my friend. I’m here.

Keith: Here’s why I’m bringing this up, Nehemia and Jono, so here’s my question for you guys - do you think that they ever had a change of the holy tongue in heaven? For example, when the angel came down to discuss whatever, or something happened in heaven, do you think that Hebrew was still a language spoken by the angels when they came down and dealt with the men on the earth?

Nehemia: Are you are asking me that?

Jono: Yeah, because, I was going to say, if you’re asking me, I would have to say I’ve got no idea. The first thing that comes to my mind, and this actually comes into my next question, but if I remember correctly Isaiah chapter 6, Isaiah refers to himself as someone who is “of unclean lips,” which would suggest that there’s a purer form of language that he recognizes, and yet what he himself was speaking was somehow corrupt. Is that fair, Nehemia?

Nehemia: No, I think what he meant by unclean lips is he’s not eloquent and he’s kind of making the same... You know, one of the themes you have of the prophets is a resistance to being a prophet. They don’t run to be a prophet. They’re not excited about being a prophet - “Choose somebody else. Please, don’t choose me.”

Jono: Sure.

Nehemia: That’s what Isaiah is expressing there, I think. He’s saying, “I’m of unclean lips. I’m not eloquent. I don’t express myself well. Just choose somebody else.” So God takes the coal and puts it on his mouth and says, “Okay. Now I’ve purified your mouth.”

Jono: Yeah. So how would you answer Keith’s question?

Nehemia: I would say, I don’t know what language angels speak. I imagine they can speak any language.

Keith: Let’s not use angels then, let’s just use the testimony to we have in the Tanakh itself. Isn’t it interesting that when we have the examples where the Creator of the universe, at least as we’ve gotten in the Hebrew Tanakh when He’s speaking, and saying, “I’m going to mix their language,” or “I’m going to do this,” or “I’m going to do that.” In the Hebrew, it’s such powerful words that come out and the reason I brought this up about the 1st century, I was trying to get you to the point of whether or not we thought that the 1st century would be Aramaic or Hebrew. The testimonies we have, and of course, you guys got to let the Methodist bring this up, I would love it if… we’re going to go over the Torah portion, but Nehemia, what have we found regarding the 1st century, when the angel comes to name the carpenter?

Nehemia: How does that fit into the Torah portion?

Keith: No, no...

Nehemia: While we’re talking about language, you can bring up Jeremiah chapter...

Keith: Because everything has got to be about the...

Nehemia: Have a look real quick at Jeremiah chapter 10 verse 11; it’s a really interesting verse. It’s the only verse in the entire Old Testament, the entire Tanakh, outside of Ezra and Daniel, it’s the only verse that has a verse in Aramaic - Jeremiah chapter 10 verse 11. The context there is God is saying to Jeremiah, “Here’s the message you should take to the Gentiles.”

Keith: Exactly.

Nehemia: Then all of a sudden, when he’s speaking to the Gentiles, in that one verse, verse 11 of Jeremiah 10, he then speaks in Aramaic. That’s the language of the Gentiles. There’s actually a play on words, there in Aramaic. He says, “Thus shall you say to them: ‘The gods who did not make the heaven and the earth, they will be destroyed from the earth and from under the heaven.’” That’s a play on words because “they will make,” is avadu and then “they will be destroyed” is yevadu. It sounds very similar.

The point here is that this was the language that God spoke... God can speak Aramaic. He can speak every language. Aramaic is understood to be the language of the Gentiles, which is really interesting when it comes to the Book of Daniel because in the Book of Daniel we have a whole massive section of prophecies that are in Aramaic. That may be because those prophecies were intended for the Gentiles; maybe those were prophecies that weren’t even for the Jews.

Keith: The reason I say it’s connected to the Torah portion was the idea of Him mixing the languages. Basically, that there was one language they were speaking, “Come, let us build this thing. Come, let us do this.” Then there’s this mixing of the languages, and there’s the mixing and people don’t understand each other, and they can’t come into a joint project together. But then, like you said, in Zephaniah 3:9, when that curse is removed, what’s the one thing that they’ll all say together? “Come,” He says, “and then that you all might be able to call upon the name Yehovah,” which goes all the way back to what you originally said, Jono. So there actually is a theme for what I was trying to get to even in the 1st century when the angel names the one we call Yeshua because it still gets back to this issue of the significance of the Hebrew language, the meaning of the Hebrew language and why it’s so powerful that we have our Hebrew language expert, Jono, on here, and then the other guy saying that he’s an expert, Nehemia, and the Methodist.

Nehemia: “Va-ye-hi or…”

Jono: I’ve got a question for the Methodist, while we’re on that topic. Keith, you point out there’s the mixing of the language, there’s obviously, a mixing, as well, quite physically when they’re making bricks. “Come, let us make bricks.” We see in verse 3, and in verse 4, it says, “Come, let us build ourselves,” but in verse 7, Keith, Yehovah, it seems, says, “ Come, let Us go down,” and let’s open another can of worms; who is the “us”?

Keith: That’s excellent. And actually, we could have brought that money ball up in Genesis chapter 1, “Come, let Us make man.”

Jono: “In Our own image,” yeah.

Keith: Yeah. And people don’t keep reading, which is one of my little themes - keep reading. Then it says, “And then thus He went down and He did this.” He’s speaking, “Come, let Us,” who is he speaking to? Maybe he’s speaking to the council, the angels, whoever, but who actually does it? He does it. He says, “Come, let Us,” I think I could make the assumption that He’s speaking to the court. This is a statement of... it’s like, what do we say Nehemia, the royal we?

Nehemia: If you look in Isaiah chapter...

Jono: Chapter 6.

Nehemia: Isaiah chapter 6 and then in 1 Kings 21 you see two scenes there, where God is speaking to what they call the royal court meaning, the assembly of angels, and in both of those scenes you have this, “we,” and there the “we,” is obvious, it’s this form of address. He’s saying “We,” as He’s consulting them, but when He actually does it, He does it alone.

Keith: Yes. Amen.

Jono: Sure. Now, Nehemia, is that how we are to understand the word “Elohim”? Because we understand Elohim is a plural, right? Is that how we are to understand that?

Nehemia: Elohim is what’s called the majestic plural, which is a grammatical category that has a plural ending, the ending “im”, but it has verbs, adjectives and pronouns that are singular. For example, in Hebrew, there’s a distinction between “he created” and “they created.” In English, you change the word “he,” to “they.” In Hebrew, you actually change the verb itself. It’s a single word, “and he created,” is one word, “and they created,” is one word. Even though, in English, it’s translated each time as three words. That word “Elohim” is always “and He created,” “and He said,” “and He went down.”

Jono: Right.

Nehemia: It’s never “and they created,” “and they went down,” “and they spoke,” “and they said.” What that tells you is that this is the grammatical category of majestic plural, which has a plural ending, but expresses the number of one. The point is that, in Hebrew, plural can be either plural in number or plural in quality, which in plain old English is a way of saying something is great. For example, when it talks in Exodus, I believe it’s 21, about the owner of an ox, it uses the majestic plural as well, and that’s not because there’s something mystical about the owner of the ox; it’s just saying he’s the absolute master and owner of that ox, and, therefore, he’s responsible for it when it causes damage.

This category majestic plural isn’t limited to God, it describes ownership and greatness in other contexts as well - there are humans who have that majestic plural describing them, as well. Like, the Queen of England, used to say, “We are not amused,” and she meant, “I’m not amused,” but that’s the way she speaks. The same thing with this majestic plural is the ending of “Elohim,” the fact that the verb is always singular tells you that we’re actually dealing with the majestic plural and not a numerical plural.

Keith: Well, I can’t wait till we get to the portion where Yehovah comes down with His friends, and I’ll have you answer that question.

Nehemia: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Jono: He’s talking about chapter 18.

Nehemia: Where it says, three men?

Keith: No, I’ve got the Trinity coming down.

Jono: I know you have. Let me just say, let me be the one, once again, as I was the one last week, I’m going to take the Trinity and throw that one under the bus as well, and let’s see the comments roll in, but be nice people, we’re happy to discuss these things. Listen, we’re running out of time.

Nehemia: For the record, that wasn’t Nehemia.

Jono: That wasn’t Nehemia. That was Jono that just threw the Trinity under the bus - the concept of the Trinity.

Keith: Don’t worry fans. I’ll get him back.

Jono: Keith. We’re running out of time. Is there anything you would like to throw into the mix in a nutshell before we go?

Keith: I appreciate it, Jono. And actually, in all seriousness, it really is a blessing to be able to interact with the Scripture and to find out what the original intent would be according to language, history, and context. Of course, there are all sorts of theological little things that we could discuss and we’ll try to do our best to work through them, but it is a blessing to know that we’re using the Scripture as the authority.

Nehemia: Amen.

Jono: Nehemia?

Nehemia: I think it’s worthwhile, in this context, for us to focus on the text and then leave the theological issues aside for those who want to engage in theology. Let the text speak for itself.

Jono: Let the text speak for itself.

Keith: Yeah. Sometimes, I won’t be able to help it though, being the Methodist.

Jono: I hope that you will join us again next week for Pearls from the Torah Portion. We’ve been speaking with Keith Johnson and Nehemia Gordon. Once again, the websites: hishallowedname.com, aprayertoourfather.com...

Nehemia: nehemiaswall.com, aprayertoourfather.com

Jono: hilkiahpress.com. In the meantime, listeners, be blessed, be set apart by the truth of the Father’s word. Shalom.

You have been listening to The Original Torah Pearls with Nehemia Gordon, Keith Johnson and Jono Vandor. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!

SUPPORT NEHEMIA'S RESEARCH AND TEACHINGS!
Makor Hebrew Foundation is a 501c3 tax-deductible not for profit organization.

Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app!
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | 
Amazon Music
 | TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
 | Pandora

Share this Teaching on Social Media
Related Posts: Prophet Pearls - Noach (Isaiah 54:1-55:5) The Truth About the Noachide Laws The Super Mario Prophecy Torah and Prophet Pearls
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Hebrew Gospel Pearls
Teachings on the Name of God
Support Team Studies
  • Prince okere says:

    Awesome website

  • Scott Howard says:

    My question is on a completely different topic from this portion, Gen 7:11 says, “the fountains of the deep were broken up”. I don’t know why that passage caught my eye, but I’m wondering if there is anything in the Hebrew about that?

  • Keith Gawrys says:

    Nehemiah said one incorrect thing. He said Noah cursed Ham. He did not: he cursed Canaan. Now why, if Ham sinned against Noah, would Noah curse Ham’s son?

    Gen 9:24 “When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
    “Cursed be Canaan!
    The lowest of slaves
    will he be to his brothers.””

    The answer may be found by reading the account a little closer:

    Gen 9:22 “Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.”
    Now read Lev 18:7:
    “You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have sexual relations with her. 8 You must not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness”

    Ham’s crime becomes clear. He had sex with Noah’s wife. Canaan was the product of that union. God had previously blessed Noah’s sons (Gen 9:1 “God blessed Noah and his sons…”) so he could not then curse whom God had blessed. If Canaan was not the product of a forbidden union he would be innocent and could not be cursed.

    Now, I say Ham had sex with “Noah’s wife” because there is no evidence Noah’s wife at this time was the mother of any of his sons. She may have been Noah’s second wife. Hence the relevance of Lev 18:8 above.

    Another theory is, as Noah’s second wife, she was the mother of Noah’s youngest child, Ham. In which case incest and Lev 18:7 come into play.

    The fourth woman ever mentioned in the Bible is Naamah, the last known direct descendant of Cain. Some Jewish legend says she was Noah’s wife or at least one of them.

    The Cainites were the people walking the earth whom Yehovah decided to destroy due to their sinfulness. Having the bloodline of Cain survive the flood makes sense considering God’s attitude towards the Canaanites and the fact Noah’s own great-grandson Nimrod (through Ham) invented pagan religion and opposed God.

  • Phillip Bradshaw says:

    I believe that Scripture explicitly points to Ham’s offense being mocking (laughing at) his father being drunk and laying naked in his tent. Very often, Rabbinical commentaries seem to be the product of imaginations loosed from rational reality by over consumption of wine and irreverence.

  • Paige says:

    Pearls collected:
    1.Same with Jono, I also thought Herews ate mutton as main meat food. It is first time to know that Arabs do but only culture meaning for Herews. Then what is common meat food for Hebrews? I would like to learn more about this food culture.
    2.Seeing the naked body of father means having sex with father.This point reminds me Jesus talk about even seeing or thinking the woman image is same to having sex(Matthew5:28).Someone said that Jesus’ law is more strict than Yehovah’s Torah considering this as evidence.I think this view seems a little like Buhda philosophy. In their mouth, sometimes Jesus is more relax than Yehovah, sometimes Jesus strict than Yehovah. But never same. I feel something need to be deep discussed.
    3.I only know 70 people of Jacob family when they down to Egypt but did not know descendants of three sons of Norach also are 70. However, I have counted the Chinese edition together with NKJV edition five times, why I always counted out 71?😵
    Nimrod should be counted?
    Question:Is 70 is just a culture meaning number but not prediction of real will happen about gentile countries?
    4.Elohim is plural in quality
    but not the quantity. I agree. “Let the text speak text itself”.This is a golden sentence. So it is not reasonable for gentiles to find Jesus from grammar of Elohim in Herew.

  • Matthew Arthur Chamberlain says:

    With all the discussion with the curse of Canaan, Zechariah 14:21 provides an interesting note in the future of Canaanites in conjunction with the last day.

    I appreciate your teaching as always, Nehemia, Keith, and Jono. Blessings to you, and peace from the Father.

  • Dave says:

    Gen 4:26
    “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.”
    The words ‘men began’ can more accurately be translated ‘ to profane’. Seems to make more sense since then comes the flood. Besides the fact, talking with God seemed more usual then.

  • Nick Strickland says:

    I meant the curse came through Cannaan

  • Nick Strickland says:

    Seeing his fathers nakedness could also mean that Ham may have had sex with Noah’s wife, which would make sense that he cursed Cainaan, maybe he went into his fathers tent,which the word tent could mean his or hers being it has the ה indicating her tent, maybe she became pregnant from Ham and so the curse was passed through Ham.

  • Elda says:

    I have always understood the Ham Noah thing as Leviticus 20:11 because as they are introduced as son’s of Noah, Canaan is introduced as being Ham’s son as though they all came from the same mother, and the curse went to Canaan not Ham. Though that could just be a KJV interpretation. Because Noah didn’t have anymore kids that we know of because he could not lay with her anymore. I just assume he didn’t have anymore kids but they lived nearly a thousand years and that is a long time to go without kids.Now I get to rethink it all.

  • Darlene says:

    I have a question. how did ham expose the nakedness of Noah. What happened ?

    • Don Kennedy says:

      In the commentary for Noach, Nehemia interprets “exposing the nakedness” in light of Leviticus 20:17 17 “If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt. ”

      Using this verse Ham has sex with Noah. However, I think the better verse to interpret with is Leviticus 18:8 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.” In this interpretation Ham had sex with Noah’s wife. Whether she was also Ham’s mother is probably not important to the story. The result of that intercourse was that she becomes pregnant with Canaan. Noah curses Canaan (not Ham) because Canaan is the result of incest.

  • jen says:

    Love the mini lesson on majestic plural ! as a biblical unitarian and believer in yeshua , my prayer is that those coming into Torah will also come into the truth that messiah is not God! our High oriest , our redeemer our soon coming King from the seed of David ..the second adam ..who has a God , the one Almighty alone , YHVH!

  • Marietta Lynch says:

    As always.. got a new pearl.. did not know the curse on the ground was removed.. how I never caught that is beyond me.. thanks guys.. shalom and blessings sent your way!

  • Vivian Blank says:

    Once again you guys blow my mind and I never walk away without an “Ah ha” moment. Thank you for your work in revealing Yehovah’s word to us so we can better understand. <3

  • Is there another teaching somewhere on the Genesis 9:3 controversy?

  • Dori says:

    WOuld love to know at some point what Gen 10:25 means with the naming of “Peleg”, and “for in his days the earth was divided”.

    • Don Kennedy says:

      The debate over Peleg is “Does ‘divided’ refer to the continents splitting apart, or to political division of the earth after the languages were confused at Babel?” John Baumgardner of Institute for Creation Research has shown conclusively that the continents were divided starting at the beginning of the flood. This leaves only the interpretation that this was the political division of the earth after Babel. For a fascinating insight into the events of Babel, including human sacrifice in the tower, read the Mayan creation story: the Popul Vuh.

  • Deborah Girdner says:

    As far as God removing the curse of the ground, I neither see it in English translations nor in real life. I checked multiple translations- KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB- all expressed the idea of God never adding a curse rather than removing the original curse. Also, Genesis 3:18 describes the curse of the ground as that of producing thorns and thistles.

  • Kathleen Townsend says:

    Re: all the. meat eating comments…you should read The land of Meat and Honey, by Karaite scholar DR Schmuel Asher

  • I never heard the answer to “Does the post-flood diet really include the “all”-you-care-to eat buffet?” Because I know a couple of Christian Pastors who do reference Gen 9:3 to justify their consumption of pork. I say that YHVH didn’t change his mind about what was considered food and what is not and that the key word is “food” but I wanted a better more direct from the word either by corrected translation or cultural history to defend the perspective that YHVH did not mean that verse to mean you can eat what you want.

    • randallmccollum says:

      Were those pastors born after Moses received the commandments? If so then seems like they are just looking for excuses to do what they want even if it is unclean to me.
      They could eat plants too but do those pastors make salads with poison ivy?
      Being a little facetious but I think you can see my point.

    • Robert adkins says:

      Pray about it.

  • Jeremy Tinnin says:

    I love you Nehemiah, Brother Keith, and other dude from “down under”.

  • Jeremy Tinnin says:

    So, there seems to be a “cute banter” that is going on here. And yet…. I will reestablish my comment after

  • Edie E says:

    Nehemia,

    I am hoping you can clarify for me the understanding that people began eating meat only after the flood. I am puzzled about it because of the passage in Genesis 4, that talks about Abel bringing an offering of the firstborn of his flock.

    In reading Leviticus we learn that burnt offerings were to be eaten – sometimes by the person who brought it, sometimes by the priest, depending on what the offering was for. I don’t have the sacrificial ordinances all memorized and I am going off memory here. Abel’s offering certainly sounds like it was a particular burnt offering in which the fat was offered separately, like the peace offering or the sin offering. Numbers 18 comes to mind in regard to Abel’s offering being the firstborn.

    Can you shed any light on why offerings would not have been eaten before the flood but would have been eaten after the flood?

    Thank you!

  • Kitty Corbett says:

    I am motivated in my old age (81) to learn Hebrew for several reasons: First, to be able to understand TORAH without translation by others who may or obviously do have a contrary agenda (ex., “King James Version”); second, because I am convinced I am one of the Lost Tribes (probably Ephraim) and will therefore be ingathered to the modern state of Israel in these Last Days; and thirdly, because YHVH has said through the prophets that He would put a “clean tongue” in our mouths. The question is, do I study Biblical Hebrew, or conversational Hebrew? Apparently there is such a difference that I must choose one over the other. I will start with learning the Hebrew alphabet and sounds, but for the rest, how would you advise, Nehemia?

  • Don Kennedy says:

    If you read the Quiche Mayan book of creation, the Popul Vu, it refers to their fleeing from what looks to be the Tower of Babel. They describe a Nimrod figure there who demanded from them humans to sacrifice. He would be sacrificing them on the tower I presume.

  • Courtney Abrams says:

    Why did Noah curse Canaan instead of Ham? After all Ham is the one who saw his father’s nakedness.

    • Don Kennedy says:

      See comments below: Cain probably “uncovered Noah’s nakedness” by having sex with Noah’s wife.

      • David says:

        Yes, Ham probably had sex with Noah’s wife (not Ham’s mother) who it turns out had Nephilim genes since that act resulted in Canaan from whom came all the post flood Nephilim.

        • Don Kennedy says:

          Can you give your source for Canaan being the father of all the post flood Nephilim? I have searched the scriptures and find nothing on their geneology. Anaq is OF the Nephilim, and son of Arba. Arba’s geneology is not given.

    • Deborah Girdner says:

      I think Canaan was cursed because God himself had already blessed Ham (Genesis 9:1). In Numbers 23, Balaam explains that he cannot curse Israel because God had already blessed Israel.

      • Randall S McCollum says:

        Nephilim =feller, bully, tyrant. It has nothing to do with size of genealogy. If you are an English speaker and put in the word tyrant it makes sense and gets rid of lots of the rather extreme theories and doctrines that have popped up.

  • As far as the sexual act, “seeing his father’s nakedness” is having sex with Noah’s wife but this woman is not his mother. Had it been his mother, Ham would have “seen his mother’s nakedness”. Leviticus does not describe “seeing his father’s nakedness” as a homosexual act. It describes it as having sex with his father’s wife.

    • David says:

      I don’t understand? Noah only brought one wife (eight people on the ark) so what other woman could this have been? If Ham had sex with his mother rather than his father, and produced a child – Canaan, this might explain why Noah cursed Canaan instead of cursing Ham? I’ve always wondered about this? This would mean that Noah waited at least nine months to make this curse?

      • only one wife….but a new one…not the mother of the boys and I have no idea when/why this would have happened. I’m just speculating based on the terminology. “Seeing his father’s nakedness” is having sex with a father’s wife. “Seeing his mother’s nakedness” is having sex with his mother. Therefore the mother is not the father’s wife.

  • Perhaps there is a command to eat only food that can be “stored” while on the ark (Gen 6) and after the flood, eating meat from clean animals (oklah) is permitted once again. IOW, this is not about identifying the vegetarian diet before the ark and the meat eating diet after the ark. It’s about specifically what is to be eaten while on the ark.
    I think a case could be made that the sacrificial system was not about feeding YHVH but about offering to Him and partaking in that offering by taking in or consuming the flesh. Therefore the 1000 years of sacrificing before the flood as Cain/Abel were obviously instructed to do and we assume others as well, would not just be about slaughtering animals and throwing away the meat but instead about consuming or taking part (eating the flesh) of that which is offered up.
    On the ark, this would or should not be done since there is no altar. And what would happen to the 2 pairs of clean animals if they were supposed to eat their meat? And how would that meat be “stored”?
    Perhaps YHVH is saying in chapter 9 that “NOW” you can eat meat (oklah) again after leaving the ark.

    • Don Kennedy says:

      The idea that eating meat was permitted “once again”, and not for the first time makes Gen. 9:3 meaningless: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” By “green herb”, Yehovah is referring back to Gen 1:29 “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” This verse says nothing about eating animals, only herbs.

  • Lea Cruz says:

    It became a necessity to have YeHoVaH’s Word be written by Moses in the Hebrew language to preserve the integrity of His Word due to the curse of the Tower of Babel were at the time the language was confused. Israel carries a very big responsibility to break their silence to spread the truth to the public about The Word of YeHoVaH.

  • Lea Cruz says:

    If there is a majestic plural in the Hebrew language then what we can understand in Genesis 3:24 where “the cherubim” was mentioned who was placed on the east of the Garden of Eden. The hidden clue to break the mystery is in this passage the time YeHoVaH gave to humanity His Law and His Spirit in the form of The Flaming Sword that guards the way to the Tree of Life. In this passage there is a hint that there were two entities: YeHoVaH sent His Son/The Flaming Sword to help humanity to return to the Tree of Life and YeHoVaH placed Satan to the tree of knowledge of good and evil/seat that he used to deceive Eve for the final fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel when Yeshua HaMashiach’s feet will split the Mount of Olives: He will crush your head and you Satan will bruise His heel. The missing part of the puzzle that help us understand the 13 attributes of YeHoVaH is in this passage if we seek the truth.

  • Nancy Arevalo says:

    I love goat meat! You should try it. 🙂

  • Marietta says:

    I learned so much! thank you for these teachings!

  • debarah says:

    One More thing was wondering Perhaps Ham was thinking he was taking the opportunity to obey Gods commandment bereshit 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth Could this be the reason he told his brothers outside thinking they could follow suit but obviously his brothers knew the folly of his actions 9:22 Ham the father of canaan,saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside This thought came to me too that the scripts are
    about geneology aren’t they? ps 119:18 Todah YHWH our Rav shalom shalom debarah

  • debarah says:

    yohm tov achi shalom shalom
    thank you YHWH for putting a love for his knowledge in you In regards to Ham taking advantage of his fathers nakedness: A man once brought the verse Lev 18:8 concerning what his fathers nakedness was and after hearing Nehemia’s comment on the matter looked up and found these other verses Lev 20:11 and Deut 27:20 Please consider also how many times in this passage Ham is referred to as fathering Canaan (9:18;22 and 25)25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

    26 And he said, Blessed be YHWH God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

    27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.) In verse 25 Canaan is cursed by Noah and is said to be his brothers slave Wonder why Noah curse Ham’s son Canaan and not Ham?
    In loo of these verses it does seem to be referring to Canaan as Shem and Japheth’s brother Do appreciate your not wanting to take things out of context Nehemia and the admonition to keep reading Keith berechah shalom shalom

  • Charles says:

    Paraphrasing Lev. 18:8 Do not have sex with the wife of your father, for it is your father’s nakedness.

    Is it possible the reason Canaan was cursed is because he was the product of Ham’s union with “Noah’s nakedness” i.e. Noah’s wife?

  • Nicholas Mansfield says:

    RE the discussion around 40min.
    Why do scholars today, take Bart Ehrman for example, insist that the language of Yeshua’s day was Aramaic? I could imagine Aramaic being used in Galilee as a second language, and it seems as though Greek was spoken on the border of the Decapolis (John12:20-22), yet Luke’s is at some pains in Acts to point out that Yeshua apparently spoke Hebrew to Saul/Paul (Acts26:14) and writes of three languages being written above the crucifixion site at Golgotha (Luke23:38); Greek, Latin and Hebrew. What gives?

    Further to the matter of language, we have this obscure word, Nephilim here in Genesis6:4. How does H5303, Nephil (sg.) relate to the Greek word, Nephele, G3507, The Cloud Of God, or cloud?

  • Vern Miroth says:

    Nehemia,
    I listened to this portion today, you said that Exodus 21 is another example of majestic plurality. I assume the pertinent periscope is Ex 21:28-32 but what am I missing? It sure doesn’t look plural to me:
    ואם שור נגח הוא מתמל שלשם והועד בבעליו ולא ישמרנו והמית איש או אשה השור יסקל וגם־בעליו יומת׃

    • The word translated as “owner” is be’alav, which is appears twice and both times is a majestic plural. The literal translation would be “his owners.” Be’alav is a combination of be’alim + o = be’alav. The -im is there, but it’s obscured by the contraction with the possessive suffix. Other examples in Exodus 21 of majestic plural are in verse 6 (adonav = odonim + o = his master), verse 8 (adoneha = adonim + ah = her master), verse 32 (adonav = his master), and verse 34 (be’alav = his owner).

  • mike melum says:

    personally I belive the ark is on MT Arrarat. for one reason God is long suffering and has no desire to punnish even the most rebellious of His creation. so evidance is scattered every where throught the universe declareing His word ;wether you say Bible or Torah, God’s love will allways make it harder to dissbelive than to acknowlage Him as the First and The Last; giving us more opertunity for grace than Justice. If Ireceived justice for my deeds hope is lost; but if I say ,” not my will but Thine,” the leval of hope and freedom can not be contained. My finite being is overwhelmed with The Name YHVH.

    • Don Kennedy says:

      Mt.Ararat is a shield volcano that would have formed after the flood. The ark is supposedly on a ledge at 14,000 feet. According to Genesis the water was only 45 feet above the mountains. None of the mountain ranges were pushed up until after the flood. The water was simply not 14,000 feet deep, only a few hundred.

  • mike melum says:

    This has blessed me If i train my thoughts I can “walk with God” I have found grace because The Torah God’s word makes sense to me. Not everyone has received this gift. A man is not innocent because he is not aware of sin but seeking humillity will reveal sin fulness, and provide a path to God’s name; and recreate man in the image of God.

  • Nicholas Mansfield says:

    I have an issue with the traditional interpretation of Bereshit concerning the order of commandments, as Jono [?] seems to mention. Christians maintain that God said firstly to procreate. Yet in Gen. 2:15, Adam is alone and he is commanded to tend the garden. Surely this is the First Commandment and the one which has truly been most ignored. Now the NWO agenda is pushing this as a means to an end, as esoterically shown in the recent movie “Noah”.