Genesis 06

Updated
2001-05-26; 14:31:53utc

06:1 thru 8

We finish our study of "The Fall and Its Consequences" with this section. Starting with vs. 9 we hope to begin a study on the life of Noah. These first eight verses of our chapter belong to the most controversial sections of the Bible. A point to consider is the meaning of several words, such as "the sons of God," Nephilim and "the LORD was grieved," as we read in vs. 6 "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain," or "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (KJV), or "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart" (RSV).

There are three main theories of interpretation of the term "the sons of God," who came to the daughters of men and had children with them as a result of sexual intercourse.

- The first one is that "the sons of God" were men of the generation of Seth, that is the people who started to call upon the name of the LORD as we read in ch. 4:26. The daughters of men would then be the girls from the lineage of Cain, who had rejected the worship of YHWY. The implication would be that people who followed the LORD would marry people of an unreligous group and that this would endanger and finally wipe out religion all together.

- The second theory is that 'the sons of God' were fallen angels, demonic spirits, who mixed with the human race by sexual intercourse, and produce beings that were half human and half demon. This corrupted the human race to the point where it became impossible for the "seed of the woman" which was promised in ch. 3:15 to be born, and would thus make the coming of the Messiah and the final defeat of Satan impossible.

- We will look at a third theory, which so far I have not found in any commentary, after a look at the first two.

The term "the sons of God" is only used in this chapter and in the book of Job in the Old Testament, in the KJV and the RSV. In the latter case it refers clearly to angels. The NIV translates it as angels in Job.[ 1 ]The Hebrew word is beney haelohim. Adam Clarke is quite adamant that in ch. 6:1 it refers to the children of Seth, but in Job 1:6 he argues with equal force that the term there refers to angels.

One of the problems is that this interpretation paints the pictures in black and white; as if all the offspring of Seth were holy people and all the children of Cain were sinful without one trace of redemptive value in them. This seems to me a gross oversimplification, which we find nowhere else in the human race. It does not apply in our time, and I doubt very much it did in the pre-flood millennia. Also there would be no logical connection between this intermarriage and the appearance of the nephilim on earth.

The second theory would imply that angelic beings would be capable of having sexual intercourse with humans, and that they would be able to produce human offspring this way. This is even harder to accept. We conclude from Jesus' words: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven,"[ 2 ]that angels are not sexual beings, and we take it that this would apply to fallen angels as well. There is no indication in the Bible that Satan is able to create life. And this would be the case if ch. 6:1 would refer to a marriage between humans and spirits.

I have no proof for the third hypothesis. The thought came to me after the reading of the book In his Image (The cloning of a man) by David Rorvik. This novel is written in the form of a scientific report. It tells the story of a millionaire who wants a son to inherit his fortune and so he pays for a scientific experiment to have himself cloned. Some DNA from his body is implanted in a specially treated female egg. The experiment finally succeeds. The reading of the book was a frightening experience. Then it dawned on me that science could advance to the point where such a story became reality. Thus far man has been unable to do such a thing, but he could learn.

How can we prove though, that in pre-flood times man was not far more intelligent and had much more knowledge than we possess at present? Darwin's theory has blurred our perception of the world picture to the point that we take it for granted that man started out as primitive and animal like and developed to the stage of sophistication in which we find ourselves at present. But since we reject Darwin's thoughts on evolution, why would we keep on being influenced in our thinking by the whole framework of his approach?

What I am saying is: we are afraid of the possibilities of genetic engineering. We think the situation can easily get out of hand in that man will start to produce some creature that he does not want, but once it exists there is nothing that can be done about it. Who can prove that this was not the case in the pre-flood times? If people had advanced genetic engineering to the point that they were able to manipulate genes and produce giants, superhuman beings, would this not explain our text? If people were knowledgeable to this point, the door to demonic influence would be wide open. It may be true that Satan cannot produce life, but humans can, and the enemy would be delighted to show them what they could do to corrupt life by "improving their genes!"

None of these phenomena would been understood by a post-flood person such as Moses, to whom we ascribe the record. So how else would he describe what happened than in the terms of vs. 1- "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them..." I am not presenting this as Gospel truth, but as a possible explanation to a mysterious text. If Satan really was successful in persuading men to improve their race by manipulating genes so that the image of God would be practically blotted out in the Nephilim, it is no wonder that God decides that He could not let this go on, and that the decision was taken that all life on earth had to be destroyed by a flood.

It also puts the verses 5 and 6 in a different light: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

Now we have to look into the meaning of the word Nephilim. This word is left untranslated in the NIV and RSV. The KJV translates it with "giants." Adam Clarke's Commentary says that Nephilim comes from a root word naphal, which means "he fell." The Septuagint translates it with "gigantes," from which we derive our word giant. The Greek word gigantes literally means "earth-born." Clarke sees herein a confirmation of his interpretation that "the sons of men" stands for the children of Cain. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of the word neither proves one thing or another.

We can deduct more from the additional comment in vs. 4: "They were the heroes of old, men of renown." The KJV and RSV say: "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown," or "These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown." Whether these men were physically superior to their ancestors, we have no way of knowing. But that they were superior in many respects, is beyond doubt. Their renown survived the flood. The hypothesis that this "superior race" would be the result of genetic engineering, carried out under the inspiration of demons, but by human hands, seems to explain most of the difficulties of this text. It also would give reasonable grounds for God's drastic intervention in the situation. History does not give us any reason to believe that man has developed from a primitive being into the intellectual creature of our modern times. It is more logical to presume that those who were closer to Paradise possessed superior knowledge than men at later stages of deterioration. Some of this knowledge, which is slowly being recovered now, may also be evident in the story of the tower of Babel in chapter 11. We will return to the subject there.

The third point to be considered is the question of the LORD's "repentance," as the KJV calls it. Vs. 4 gives is the interpretation of how the population of the earth viewed themselves. The Nephilim were famous. Men were proud of their achievements. They thought they had created a good world for themselves. But God's perspective shows a picture that is completely different. These "mighty men," "the men of renown" were, evidently, the most corrupted creatures our planet has ever seen.

God's verdict is given in vs. 5: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."

This difference of opinion between God and man about the world situation still exists. In the days of Nebuchadnezzar the Bible gives us the picture from two different angles. The king himself saw the kingdom of Babylon as the golden head of a statue. But in the revelation that is given to Daniel, God showed it to him as a lion with wings, one of four awful creatures.[ 3 ]God is the only one who can judge objectively about anything; all human judgment is subjective.

I am sure that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were proud of their cities. They must have believed in their hearts that God was impressed by the way they handled their affairs. Recently, I spoke with an agnostic from Amsterdam, who told me that the conditions of the city were not as bad as some people made them out to be! This in spite of the fact that Amsterdam is the "drug center of Europe.

God's opinion of the Nephilim is that they were totally corrupt: "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."

Listen to what Jesus says in Matthew's Gospel: "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."[ 4 ]

From one generation to another man has been unable to see himself as he really is, as God sees him. And, ultimately, it is only God's judgment about man that counts. After all He is the judge. The farther away from God man is, the less he knows himself.

The image of God had been almost completely wiped out in the Nephilim This development shows how extremely clever God's adversary is, and how close he came to achieving his purpose.

Man is more than a pawn in this game; he plays a pivotal role, as the story of Job's life shows. It is through confession of sin and through atonement that man becomes the instrument in God's hand through which the enemy is defeated. The Apostle Paul says: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."[ 5 ]

How can God's "repentance" be reconciled with His immutability and His omniscience? It is obvious that God does not repent from sin, as man has to do. The NIV and RSV are probably much closer to the original meaning when they say "The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain," or "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart" (RSV). The fact that human emotions are ascribed to God, even emotions that are considered as a sign of instability in men, does not mean that God would not be immutable in character, or that the developments took Him by surprise.

First of all, we have to realize that our emotions are part of the divine image in us. If we agonize, it is because God is capable of agony. The grief and sorrow, mentioned in vs. 6 are an expression of divine agony. In reacting toward the corruption of the human race in the period before the flood, God acted consistent with His character. Anger and wrath are as much part of God's eternal character as love and patience. As Paul states in Romans: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness."[ 6 ]"The wrath of God is being revealed" is in the presence in Greek, which means that it is a constant, lasting condition. It is always that way. The difference between our emotions and God's is that God's are consistent and ours are not .

Secondly, there is no inconsistency between God's evaluation of man at the time of creation and at the period described in our text. Chapter 1:31 says: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning; the sixth day." Now it does not say, that God regretted that He had created man in His image. Vs. 6 speaks about God's pain in seeing the results of men's choice. Some of our children may go wrong when they grow up. In many cases this may not be our fault. (Sometimes it is.) Parents who have seen their children go wrong through use of drugs, or by becoming criminals, or who have lost children through suicide, should understand something of the feelings that God expresses here. Just as much as we may be proud of our child, we can also be ashamed that this particular one is ours. Our children have their own life, their own personality, their own choices. We cannot control them completely, even if we would try. This means that they can go wrong.

Before creation God knew that He wanted to create men in His image who would be free to choose. He knew how they would choose and what the results would be. Before the foundation of the world, He made the provision of redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ. We can say that God had calculated the price of creating man in His image, and He considered it worthwhile.

But this does not mean that when man fell into sin, God's heart was not pierced. God had feelings of agony in Paradise, in the pre-flood world, and at Calvary. The fact that He is omniscient does in no way diminish any of these feelings.

Finally, we have to admit that, because of a similarity of feelings, we can in a very limited measure, understand what God means when He says that He grieves; but in reality we are an eternity away from the depth of God's feelings. Our agony is only a vague, misty reflection of real grief and sorrow. To a certain extend this should mean a comfort to us because it puts our sorrow in perspective. We know that God goes through things that are structurally the same as our experiences, and He is on our side. His eternal love offsets the pain, and keeps us from despair.

Vs. 7 and 8 bring us to the end of our study about the fall and its consequences. Vs. 8 forms the link to our next subject, the life of Noah and the flood. We read: "So the LORD said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air; for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."

It is hard for us to understand how to interpret God's decision to wipe out life from the face of the earth in the light of God's love. We have to remember that God's righteousness is just as much a part of His eternal character as is His love. If God would eternally tolerate sin, He would compromise His righteousness to the point where His perfection would be affected, and if God would become imperfect, He would cease to be God. This would mean the end of God, and the end of all life, the life of the devil included. It could be that the devil would have accepted annihilation of himself if it would have meant the end of God, we do not know. We are talking about things that are far beyond us. It seems that in choosing to wipe mankind from the face of the earth, God chose the lesser of two evils. If the flood had not taken place, the corruption of life would have taken care of its own annihilation.

It is easy for us to miss the point in reading in vs. 5: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." The world had become one great concentration camp, where people were tortured and killed. And the people who did this enjoyed what they did. If we felt that Nazi Germany had to be brought down, and their war criminals had to be executed, we can hardly object to God's decision to bring the flood over the ancient world. It would not have been an expression of love to let the situation continue. How much this cost God, we understand from God's promise to Noah after the flood. In ch. 9:11 God says emphatically: "never again!" "Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." Peter prophesied that on the last day the world will go up in flames. Talking about the flood, the Apostle says: "By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." I believe, however, that man will light this fire himself, either by a nuclear explosion or by some similar device.

In all this corruption God found one man, Noah, who had kept the faith. God used him as a seed to start his new creation after the flood. Noah went through this death and he rose from it. Just when the victory of the devil seemed to be complete, this seed started sprouting out and soon afterward the earth was covered with life again.

NOAH AND THE FLOOD

Chapter 6:8 – 9:29

The story of Noah and the flood is a record of one of the most catastrophic events in the history of our planet. There are numerous accounts of this outside the Bible. Not only do we have the Babylonian myths about the flood, but we found that several of the tribes in the mountains of Irian Jaya, Indonesia, had oral traditions about a flood that covered the earth and about a man, called Nuh.

The name of Noah is found in some of the genealogies in the Bible.[ 7 ]Isaiah mentions his name in a prophecy.[ 8 ]Ezekiel put Noah next to Job and Daniel as an example of a righteous man.[ 9 ]In the New Testament Jesus compares Noah's time with the time of His return.[ 10 ]We find him in the list of hero's of faith in Hebrews.[ 11 ]And finally, Peter mentions him in two rather difficult passages.[ 12 ]

Bible critics have tried to discredit the reliability of the account of the flood, but Emanuel Veliskovsky, who cannot be accused of Christian sympathies, maintains that there is overwhelming archeological and geological evidence that a major catastrophe hit the earth, and that a universal flood swept bones of humans and animals from one side of the globe to the other. This is the topic of his book Earth in Upheaval.

The Bible starts the account of Noah's life by saying that he found favor in the eyes of the LORD, that he was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time and that he walked with God. (vs. 8,9). We have to emphasize again that this does not mean that Noah did not sin. His drunkenness in chapter 9 proves the opposite. But he availed himself of the provisions for atonement that God had made. This made him the object of God's favor and brought him into an intimate relationship with God, comparable to that of Enoch. It also gives him the reputation of being blameless among the people of his time, of whom it is said that they were totally corrupt. The importance of this lesson cannot escape us.

The word "favor" in vs.8 is Hen, which has the same letters as the name Noah, but in reversed order. The Pulpit Commentary says that: "the present is the first occurrence of the word in Scripture. 'Now for the first time grace finds a tongue to express its name' (Murphy); and it clearly signifies the same thing as in Rom. 5; 6; Eph. 2; Gal. 2, the gratuitous favour of God to sinful man."

The above comment confirms what we said about Noah's righteousness not being an absence of sin, but that it implies confession and forgiveness. Noah's confession of his sinful character, and failures, and God's provision of atonement brought about in Noah such a change that he could experience an intimate relationship with God and this made him gain a reputation of righteousness among the people of his time.

If we follow the Hebrew indications of age of the ancestors, as given in The Pulpit Commentary, Noah was 41 years old when Enoch was taken to Heaven. That means he was old enough to have known his great grandfather. And since the Scripture uses the same words to describe their relationship with God, we may presume that Noah modeled his spiritual life after that of Enoch.

In a certain way nobody ever played a more pivotal part in the history of the human race than Noah. If he had not walked with God and obeyed Him, doubtless in the face of a torrent of mockery and abuse of his peers, there would be no human race or animal life left on our planet. Noah is, therefore, the key to our modern world.

If we may conclude from vs. 3 that God planned to destroy the earth in 120 years, then Noah was about 480 when God started talking to Him about His plan. In ch. 7:6 we read that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came. We read nothing about Noah's reaction to this revelation. He obeyed God's orders and prepared the ark. In Hebrews we read: "By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."[ 13 ] His building of the ark was a sermon in itself. But he also must have proclaimed in words what he was doing, because the Apostle Peter called him "a preacher of righteousness."

There is a theory that up to the time of the flood it had never rained on earth. There is no way to prove whether this is true or not. It is obvious, though, that Noah built a ship on dry land, probably far from any main body of water that would make it a logical place for ship building. It is not hard to imagine what the general public must have thought about that. If the society of Noah's days was as sophisticated as we think it was, then the actions of a man, who built a ship on dry land in the Name of a God, whose existence they either denied or ignored, must have been the joke of the century. It went against all logic and reason, unless one was sincerely concerned about the morals of the age; and evidently nobody was.

The instructions about the building of the ark seem quite rudimentary to us, but it is possible that God gave a much more detailed blueprint to Noah than the one we have. A ship of 150 x 25 x 15 meter with three decks is still an impressive ship in our time. Modern translations use the word cypress wood for the building material. Evidently pitch was a common sealer at that time. We find tar mentioned in ch. 11:3, and also in ch. 14:10.

The ark was not a ship in the real sense of the word. It was more an elaborate raft or floating device. There was no rudder built into it, and it was not up to Noah to navigate it. God would be in charge of the navigation. The dimensions make sense, and the window, which evidently went all around the ark must have taken care of the ventilation.

Noah and his three sons must have been the main builders. We should not exclude the possibility of some outside help too. Probably men, who did not believe in it, lent a helping hand to build the ark; but they never entered it, and consequently they drowned in the flood.

It has been objected that there is so much repetition in the account. This is seen by the "Higher Critics" as an indication that we have here a combination of two or more sources, similar to the first two chapters of Genesis. We do not deny the possibility that Moses may have used existing sources, but that does not make the account harder to believe or less inspired. Much of the repetition can be explained, however, if we see that first God talks to Himself about what He is going to do, and then to Noah.

In vs. 7 God verbalized His plan: "So the LORD said, 'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air; for I am grieved that I have made them.' "

In vs. 13 God speaks to Noah, and tells him what is going to happen and why: "So God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.' "

And in vs. 17 God tells Noah how He is going to do it: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." What God announced to Noah was something completely new. It may have rained before, we do not know, but never before had the huge water reservoirs from under the earth burst open and flooded the earth. God told Noah what to expect. This explanation must have made it easier for him to believe and he needed this kind of faith to stand against the mockery of his contemporaries.

The repetition about the animals is not too hard to explain either. In chapter 6:20; 7:8,14,23 we find the expression "every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground." First of all it indicates the undeniable link between man and beast. God still sees man as the king of His creation. When the king dies, his kingdom perishes with him.

Secondly, there is a strong suggestion of deep emotion in the repetition. God does not destroy everything He made with a callous heart. The repetition shows His deep hurt.

And finally it shows the magnitude of the disaster. With the exception of two of every species, and fourteen of some, every one of God's creatures perished.

[ 1 ] See Job 1:6 and 2:1

[ 2 ] Matt. 22:30

[ 3 ] Comp. Dan.2:32 with 7:4

[ 4 ] Matt. 11:23,24

[ 5 ] Rom. 16:20

[ 6 ] Rom 1:18

[ 7 ] See I Chr.1:3,4 and Luke 3:36

[ 8 ] Isa. 54:9

[ 9 ] Ezek. 14:14, 20

[ 10 ] See Matt. 24:37,38 and Luke 17:26,27

[ 11 ] Heb. 11:7

[ 12 ] I Pet.3:20; II Pet.2:5

[ 13 ] Heb.11:7