If I were Lot I would have serious doubts about trusting Abram when he suggested he split things fairly. After all, Abram did just prostitute his wife in the interest of pragmatism and the greater good.
This chapter ends with Abram giving an offering to God. Whatever Abram isn’t (I still can’t get past what he did to Sarai in the last chapter), he is a believer. In the end, regardless of what part of the Bible you read, it’s impossible to forget than this is the story of a holy God and a fallen man separated by an impossible divide. The bridge cannot be goodness and we’re reminded by the intense flaws in the few people we’ve seen profiled God’s favor alone grants us salvation. (Even Noah was spared from grace…)

Family trees are hard to follow for me. Some of the names were familiar (Egypt, Canaan), some of the places come up again later (Sodom, Nineveh) and some of the names I was unaware were in the Bible (Seba, Rehoboth, Gaza).

I didn’t realize that separate languages preceded Babel, though it’s possible Javan’s sons were born after Babel. I would imagine that story is coming up, so I’ll keep a watchful eye on the timeline to see how it all works together.

It’s fascinating that here God endorses eating animals, where before it was just the plants. It’s also interesting that in nearly the same breath we see that “every creature will be afraid of you”. Why such profound shift in the human / animal dynamic? I’m reminded of the painting Peaceable Kingdom where an infant is hanging out with a herd of mixed animals, all at peace (hence the title). Perhaps that was once the dynamic.

Here also we see Ham’s punishment brought down on Canaan. I’m not sure how this fits into our modern views of justice and individualism, but it’s certainly an effective deterrent to think your progeny will suffer explicitly for your sins.

The big question in this chapter relates to killing the human (or animal) that spills another man’s blood. I’ve heard this verse used to support the death penalty before. I’m not sure what I think of that. Through the excellent work of organizations like the innocence project, many death row inmates—some posthumously—have been exonerated. So then would their deaths also need retribution? If this verse is the religious support for the death penalty, I would think so. I’m also curious how this ties in with war – were the wars Israel engaged in only righteous when the other party first killed a Jew? Questions, questions…

No flood story is complete without the rainbow footnote. I’ve always found it comforting to see a rainbow—not because I’ve overly concerned with a global flood, but because it’s comforting to know we have God who cares enough not just to swear off flooding out humanity again, but a God who cares enough to give us such a splendid reminder. It’s a mighty footnote.

I don’t know how I got it so wrong, but I thought it was 40 days of rain, 40 days of dry and then to repopulating the Earth. I had somehow missed 150 adrift, then many more waiting for the water to fully recede. As they left the boat it had been nearly a full year since Earth’s populate died.

I cannot image the range of emotions the Arks (Noah+wife+sons+sons’ wives) must have felt. The profound sadness as the loss of everyone they knew. Profound relief at escaping the ark. Profound curiosity about what they would find. Would the landscape be littered with corpses? (I’d guess the sea life took care of that.) Would the land look the same? (I’d guess not.)

It must have been a profound sense of faith and thanks that led them to sacrifice so many animals as a first act on the dry land. I am tempted to wrestle with whether it was a waste or not, but then I’m reminded that in the context of offerings that’s a noble purpose. All I need is to look back to Cain and Able and remember that returning to God what he’s given to you is a serious business.