The word ‘generations’ seems here to signify the genealogy of Noah — not passively, that is, in respect of the forefathers from whom Noah drew his lineage, but actively, that is, in respect of his descend-…²

…ants and the sons of Noah; for there follows: ‘And he begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.’ The sense, then, is: This is the progeny and offspring of Noah, which was preserved together with him from the destruction of the Flood. The generations of Noah are mentioned by Moses three times: first, in the closing words of the fifth chapter, because in them the progress of the first age of the world was bounded and ended (for beyond the generation of Noah’s sons there was no other generation in the direct line until after the Flood); in the second place, the generations of Noah are named here, to signify which men were to be preserved from the Flood; in the third place, they are named after the Flood, inasmuch as they were to be spread out and multiplied into every race of men, and for this reason they are named below, in ch. 9 and 10. There are some who interpret that phrase, ‘These are the generations of Noah,’ thus: ‘These are the things that happened in the times of Noah,’ or, ‘this is the history of the things that befell Noah.’³

But because Moses, after he had said ‘These are the generations of Noah,’ did not next append his carnal progeny, but his virtues, saying that he was just and perfect and walked with God, Chrysostom therefore hands down that a man’s chief nobility and the splendor of his genealogy ought to be regarded and esteemed not from the glory of his forefathers or descendants, but from the excellence of his virtues. Hear Chrysostom: “This is a rare and unusual manner of genealogy; for, as Scripture said, ‘These are the generations of Noah,’ and filled our ears with a certain expectation, as though about to narrate his genealogy — and who his father was, and whence he drew his lineage, and how he was brought into this life, and the other things which it is the custom for those narrating genealogies to recount — yet, leaving all those things aside, even the former custom, it says, ‘Noah, a just and perfect man in his generation, pleased God.’ Have you seen an admirable genealogy? Let us too, then, follow the rules of divine Scripture, and of those whose genealogy we relate let us not bring forward into the midst the fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but set forth their virtues and good deeds. This is the best manner of genealogy. For what profit is it to draw one’s origin from illustrious and upright parents, if you are devoid of a good life and of virtues? Or what harm would it be if your parents and forefathers were ignoble and obscure, but you yourself flourish in virtues? For such was Noah; for Scripture does not record his parents as noble in virtue. Yet he won for himself the grace of God, and although he had many obstacles and impediments to doing well, he nevertheless reached the highest summit of virtue and perfection.” Thus Chrysostom.⁴

Ambrose chimes in with things like Chrysostom’s. Noah (he says) is praised not by the nobility of his lineage, but by the merit of his justice and perfection. For the lineage of an approved man is the offspring of virtue; because, as the race of men are men, so the race of souls are virtues. For families of men are ennobled by the splendor of their lineage; but of souls, the grace is made illustrious by the splendor of virtues. Thus Ambrose. Yet it must not be denied that, when Moses said ‘These are the generations of Noah,’ he did not mean to designate Noah’s carnal progeny; for a little below he subjoined the generation of his three sons. But that he interposed the virtues of Noah came about so that he might indicate of what sort and how great a man he was describing the generation: namely, by whose merit not only he himself, but his whole progeny — that is, the seedbed of the human race —…⁵

…escaped the calamity of the Flood.⁶

But let us see of what sort this encomium of Noah is, by which Moses proclaimed him as a man just and perfect and walking with God. Certainly to none of the earlier patriarchs — not to Seth, not to Enos, not even to Henoch himself — was so extraordinary and illustrious a commendation given by Moses. Chrysostom, treating this encomium of Noah with a brilliant interpretation: “Behold,” he says, “another very great kind of commendation: Noah is called ‘just,’ which appellation embraces every virtue; for this name ‘just’ we are wont to apply to those who exercise virtue of every kind. Then, that you may learn how he reached the highest summit — that which was then required of our nature — he says, ‘Just, being perfect in his generation.’ He fulfilled, he says, all the things which it befits him to do who embraces virtue. For this is the perfect man; for he omitted nothing, he halted in nothing; he did not do well in this and sin in that, but was perfect in every virtue in which it befitted him then to be strong. Moreover, that he might also from the time and from the comparison with others present the just man to us more illustriously, he says, ‘Perfect in his generation’ — in that time, in that perverse generation which so declined into evil that it would not bear even a trace of virtue. In that generation, then, in those times, that just man not only displayed virtue, but reached so high a peak of virtue that he was perfect and complete in all things. And what I said before, that to do well among the enemies of virtue and among those who hinder virtue always bears witness to a greater weight of virtue — whence by this reasoning that just man gained greater praises. Nor here does divine Scripture make an end of praising him, but still demonstrates the excellence of his virtue, and that he was approved by the divine reckoning; for after it said ‘Perfect in his generation,’ it adds that Noah pleased God. So great was the glory of his virtue that he deserved to be praised even by God. For ‘Noah pleased God,’ it says, that you may know that he was approved by God; he pleased that eye which cannot be deceived, and won for himself so great a favor of his by the good works of his life that He not only freed him from the indignation to be poured out on all, but also made him to preside over others.” Thus Chrysostom.⁷

It is the same, then, according to Chrysostom, to be named ‘just’ and to be called furnished and adorned with all the virtues. And he is ‘perfect’ who fulfills all the offices of the virtues abundantly, and fails in nothing at any time. And ‘to walk with God,’ or ‘before God,’ is to please God and to be approved and praised by his testimony. Cajetan says that Noah is here described as endowed with two general virtues: one relative to the good, when he is called ‘just’; the other relative to the evil, when he is called ‘perfect.’ For justice renders to each his own; but perfection signifies that nothing of the things required is lacking, and excludes every defect. Tostatus, however, thinks that Noah was called ‘just’ because he did not depart from the precepts of the natural law and from the holy institutions of the ancient Patriarchs, who had instituted certain rites and ceremonies pertaining to the external worship of God. We say briefly that justice is the virtue which renders to each his own. The just man, therefore,…⁸

…is he who renders what he owes, and as he owes, and when he owes, to God, to his neighbor, and to himself: to God, faith, hope, charity, obedience, and worship and reverence both inward and outward; to himself, continence and the subjection of his passions under the judgment and command of reason; to his neighbor, love, equity, mercy. Since, therefore, Noah excelled in this threefold kind of duties in his time, he is rightly named ‘just.’⁹

For the word ‘perfect,’ in Hebrew is the term tamim, which means ‘whole and perfect,’ from the verb tamam, which means to perfect, complete, and finish. And he is called a ‘perfect man’ who is commonly called a ‘complete man’ (huomo compito) — in whom, namely, you could desire nothing that pertains to the offices of the virtues; who not only fulfills the things that are due, but also pursues the things that are of supererogation, and who follows and cultivates the virtues not in a common or moderate manner, but according to the highest degree and, as it is said, the heroic.¹⁰

And that phrase ‘In his generations’ is variously expounded. First, it is said thus according to Jerome, that it may be shown that Noah is called ‘just’ not according to consummate justice (which is simply called justice), but according to the justice of his generation — that of which, namely, the condition of human nature is capable, or which was required of the men of that time. Augustine, in book 15 of The City of God, ch. 26, refers that phrase ‘In his generation’ to the present life: “Noah,” he says, “is called just in his generation — not, indeed, as the citizens of the city of God are to be perfected in that immortality in which they will be made equal to the angels of God, but as they can be perfect in this pilgrimage.” Chrysostom interprets ‘In his generation’ as ‘Among the men of his own age,’ so that this may profit much for the praise of Noah, that, although he lived among impious and wicked men, he himself was nevertheless most religious and lived blamelessly. Cajetan, by ‘In his generation,’ understands and expounds the progeny and sons of Noah, so that it may be signified that not only was Noah good and just, but that his whole family and progeny were so uprightly instructed by him that it too pursued piety and justice — although after the Flood one of his sons, Ham, was insolent toward his father and worthless and reprobate. Lyra and Tostatus say that ‘In his generation’ can be taken two ways: in one way, so that it makes for a certain diminution of Noah’s praise, so that the sense is, ‘Although Noah was just and perfect in comparison with the men of his own age, yet in comparison with the later patriarchs, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had he lived in those times, the fame of his justice and sanctity would have been dimmer and less’; in the other way, it can be expounded so that it pertains to the amplification of Noah’s praise, so that it is signified that Noah, in his generation — that is, in comparison with all his forefathers who had been from Seth down to himself — was in justice and perfection of virtue the most excellent of all, so that he surpassed in the summit of virtues not only Seth and Enos, but even Henoch himself.¹¹

There follows: ‘He walked with God.’ The same Moses said above, in the fifth chapter, of Henoch, writing that he walked with God. The same too is written below, in chapter 17, of Abraham, to whom the Lord said, ‘Walk before me and be perfect.’ Now ‘to walk with God’ and ‘before God’ is a Hebraism, which the Doctors interpret variously, but to nearly the same sense. The Septuagint translators, both here and in the fifth chapter, rendered ‘He pleased God’; which Chrysostom expounds: to be commended by the divine reckoning, suffrage, and testimony, and to please the divine eye which sees all things and cannot be deceived, and so to have won for himself the favor of God that he not only freed himself from the indignation to be poured out on all, but also preserved with himself the seed of the human race. The Chaldee paraphrase expressed this Hebraism thus: ‘In the fear of the Lord Noah walked.’ Jerome expounds: ‘He followed the footsteps of God.’ Cajetan: ‘He walked — that is, advanced — according to the form of divine justice and divine law,’ so that hence it might be manifest of what sort the justice and perfection of Noah was, namely according to the divine law. Others thus: ‘He led a divine life, feared God, and never failed him’; or, ‘in all things he considered what God willed or what he required of him, and conformed himself plainly to every will of God’; or, ‘he always beheld God as it were present to himself, wherefore he always went about most cautious, most modest, and most devout’; or, ‘he was always ready, prompt, and intent on carrying out all God’s commands and biddings promptly and eagerly, as ministers and servants are wont to be in the sight of their masters.’¹²