Genesis 10 - The Table of Nations (Line of Japheth)

Genesis Chapter 10:1 to 11:9 is the next Toldot known as "the records of the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah; and sons were born to them after the flood".  It comprises the Table of Nations and the Tower of Babel incident.

The Table of Nations in Chapter 10 represented the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth "according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations".  The point that Chapter 11 started with the description that "the whole earth used the same language and the same words" provided us with the context that, chronologically, the event in Chapter 11:1-9 happened in between the description of the nations in Chapter 10.  It probably happened during Peleg's time (3rd generation from Shem, Ham and Japheth) "for in his days the earth was divided".

Unlike the creation story and the global flood, the Table of Nations is unique to the Bible with no parallel in other ancient texts.  The Table of Nations makes several points:

(1) It puts all the nations in its geographical context and will be extremely important in understanding of the various Biblical prophesies that came later.  We also need to note that since the names of nations change over time, the names mentioned in Chapter 10 is time-stamped to Moses time since it was written by him.

(2) The Table of Nations shows no ethnic superiority of any kind.  This is instructive to us that no one nation or race is superior.

(3) Besides some deviations, this Table of Nations is repeated in 1 Chronicles Chapter 1.  We will highlight the deviations in the subsequent discussions. 

Most of the materials are taken from Fruchtenbaum commentary on Genesis.

Line of Japheth

Japheth had 7 sons:

Gomer (to complete, finish): Based on other ancient near eastern texts, Gomer is located in the area south of the Black Sea (Turkey).  Other suggestions to their region include Germany, France and Wales.  The only other reference to Gomer as a country is in Ezekiel 38 (verse 6) where they were part of the northern alliance that were involved in the failed invasion of Israel.

Magog (rooftop or covering): Magog dwelled in the region between the Black and Caspian Seas, where Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and parts of Russia reside.  Magog is also mentioned in Ezekiel 38 and 39 with the leader of the northern alliance hailing from the land of Magog.  It is further mentioned together with Gog in Revelation 20:8 to illustrate the extent of Satan's final deception by alluding to the earlier Ezekiel incident.

Madai (measure or out of abundance): This same Hebrew word is translated to Medes or Media in the rest of the Bible who went on to form the Persian-Medes empire under Cyrus during Daniel's time.  It is located south of the Caspian Seas which linked it to present day Iran.  Fruchtenbaum mentioned that some of Madai's descendents migrated to India.  Medes is mentioned in the future as the nation that God will use to destroy Babylon (Isaiah 13:17-20, Jeremiah 51:11-12, Jeremiah 51:28-29). 

Javan (mire, soft mud[?]): This same Hebrew word is translated to Greece / Greeks in other parts of the Bible.  Javan is also mentioned in Ezekiel 27:13,19 (as one of the countries that traded with Tyre), Isaiah 66:19-21 (as one of the countries in the millenium that the Jews would go to spread God's word to) and Joel 3:4-6 (where Tyre, Sidon and Philistines were accused of selling the Jews to the Greeks as slaves during the Tribulation).  

Tubal (bringing forth): The Greek historian Herodotus put Tubal north of the Mediterranaen Sea in Turkey.  Others have put them at Tobolsk in Siberia.  Tubal is mentioned together with Javan in both Isaiah 66:19-21 and Ezekiel 27:13,19.  Tubal is also mentioned along with Meshech in Ezekiel 38 and 39 as part of the northern alliance against Israel, and also in Ezekiel 32:26 where they are mentioned together with Egypt by God's lamentation.

Meshech (drawing out): Meshech is located between the Black and Caspian Seas.  They are always mentioned in together with Tubal as described above.  In Psalm 120, Meshech is alluded to be enemies of Israel.

Tiras (moisture, fragment):  The location of Tiras is uncertain but people have put it in the west of the Black Sea where Romania and Bulgaria are today.  Tiras is only mentioned in the geneology listed here and in 1 Chronicles. 

The Bible also listed 7 grandsons of Japheth, 3 from Gomer and 4 from Javan:

From Gomer

Ashkenaz (spreading/sprinkling fire):  Ashkenaz is located at the south-western tip of the Black Sea.  Others put it in the region of present day Germany and Denmark.  It's only other mention is in Jeremiah 51:27 together with the kingdoms of Ararat and Minni as God's instrument against Babylon. 

Riphath (healing, remedy, health): Riphath is located in the similar region as Ashkenaz.  There is no other mention of Riphath in the Bible.  In 1 Chronicles 1, Riphath is spelled as diphath, probably due to a scribal error where the hebrew letter resh and dalet are similar in writing.  

Togarmah (break/crush bones):  Togarmah is located in the similar region as Ashkenaz and Riphath in the region of Turkey.  Togarmah is noted in Ezekiel 27:14 for exporting horses to Tyre and in Ezekiel 38:6 together with Gomer as part of the northern alliance against Israel.  

From Javan 

Elishah (God helps/support):  Elishah is located in the region of Cyprus/Crete.  The only other mention of Elishah is in Ezekiel 27:7 which mention Tyres maritime might that its distinctive sails could be seen from the coastlands of Elishash. 

Tarshish (contemplation, examination):  Tarshish is traditionally located in the region of Spain.  It is mentioned 25 times in the Bible.  Tarshish is known as exporters of many items (1 Kings 10:22, 2 Chronicles 9:21, Ezekiel 27:12, Jeremiah 10:9), related to ships (1 Kings 22:48, 2 Chronicles 20:36, Psalm 48:7, Isaiah 2:16, Isaiah 23), as one of the countries with Sheba and Dedan to protest against the northern alliance invasion of Israel (Ezekiel 38:13) and finally as one of the countries in the millenium that the Jews would go to spread God's word to (Isaiah 66:19).  It is also mentioned in Jonah as the region that Jonah wanted to escape to avoid God. 

Kittim (crusher / crushed ones): Kittim is located in the region of Cyprus/Crete together with Elishah.  This is confirmed by the reference of Kittim to ships and coastlands (Numbers 24:24, Daniel 11:30, Jeremiah 2:10). 

Dodanim (beloved): Dodanim is located in the region of Greece.  No other mentions is made of Dodanim in the Bible.

A total of 14 nations are mentioned under Japheth.  Verse 5 pointed to the fact that the nations as inhabiting the coastlands, namely, the European, Persian and Asian regions.  This is a fulfilment of Noah's blessings that "May God enlarge Japheth".

Genesis 9 - The Noahic Covenant and Here We Go Again

The first thing that Noah did when he departed from the ark was to build an altar and offer 1 (pair?) of every clean animal and bird, which Noah had previously took 7 pairs into the ark, as a burnt offering to God. 

The Noahic Covenant 

Genesis 8:21 to 9:17 is the Noahic Covenant.  The content are as follows:

(a) Recipient: Noah, his descendants (that includes you and me), and all living creatures.

(b) The Promise: all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth. 

(c) Our Obligation: This is an unconditional covenant, that is, we need not do anything for this particular covenant to be in effect.

(d) The Sign: bow in the cloud (rainbow).

(e) Other Instructions:

- Human beings are to populate the earth.  In fact, this instruction was repeated in verses 1 (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth) and 7 (be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it), emphasising God's seriousness.  Of course, humankind, for some reasons not revealed, decided not to obey this command which we will see in Chapter 11. 

- On top of the green plants, every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you.  Human beings would be omnivorous.  Because of this, God instilled the fear and terror of human beings into the all living creatures because God has also given human beinge dominion over all the living creatures.  This also demonstrated God's grace towards the animals.  The only restriction to this diet is that they are not to "eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood".  This can be interpreted as not eating [drinking] blood (which became an occultic practice later] or flesh which is not drained of its blood. 

-  Capital punishment was mandated for murder in verse 6 - Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.  Man was mandated to implement capital punishment on those who kill.  The reason being "for in the image of God He made man".  Since man was made in the image of God, killing a human being is an affront to destroying God's image.  There is no indication here that this was to have any deterrence purpose.  It was simply God's punishment to be executed by humankind for those who kill.

Things to Note

(1) In Gen 8:21-22, God promised not to destroy the earth and all living things as he had done [via water].  While comforting, those of us familiar with the Bible will know that God will ultimately judge the earth with fire.

(2) The sign that God gave for this covenant, the bow or rainbow, points to the fact that the rainbow did not happened pre-flood, else why would it be so special that God gave it as a sign if it was already observed in the pre-flood era.  This also alluded to the idea that the canopy theory can be plausible.  The canopy theory is the idea that the atmosphere, pre-flood era, contained high concentration of water vapour.  This was also the hypothesis why people during that era could live such long lives.  Sure there are good scientific reasons why the atmosphere could not have contained so much water vapour but we should not limit what God is able to do.

The Strange Incident

Gen 9:20-29 narrated a strange incident.  You would think that with the flood, Noah and his sons would experience intimately God's presence and know what needs to be done.  Unfortunately, for some unknown reason(s), Noah decided to plant a vineyard, gather the grapes, made the wine and got himself drunk.  The only saving grace was that he did not publicly embarrased himself but became naked inside his tent.  

His son Ham saw the nakedness of his father and told his 2 brothers.  This demonstrated 2 points: (a) It seems that the only way that Ham could see his father's nakedness was that he went into Noah's tent, which he shouldn't have done and (b) to compound this, instead of covering Noah, he decided to go and tell his brothers about it.  While the Bible did not say why, we can speculate that Ham wanted his brothers to see their father's shame.

To the credit of Shem and Japheth, they did not gloat over their father's plight but covered Noah's nakedness in a ver deliberate manner (But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness.).  When Noah woke up, he pronounced the future states of his 3 sons.

Ham: Critics have criticised Noah's curse on Ham through his 4th son Canaan.  Their contention is why should Ham's son be punished for Ham's wrongdoing.  Some Bible commentators tried to justify this by pointing to Bible references (Exo 20:5, 34:6-7, Num 14:18 and Deut 5:9) that say that God punished the sins of a person down to the 3rd and 4th generations.  My view is that this is unnecessary for several reasons: 

(a) In Deut 5:10, God also said that He would show "lovingkindness to thousands [generations], to those who love Me and keep My commandments" (similarly in Exo 34:6-7).  This means that Canaan was also responsible for his own destiny which of course turned out to be bad.  In fact, the indictment of God against Canaan speaks for itself in Deut 12:29-31:

When the LORD your God cuts off before you the [Canaanite] nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How do these [Canaanite] nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?'  You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

(b) If God's punishment of Ham to the 3rd and 4th generations was true, then it should have also affected Ham's three other sons - Cush, Mizraim and Put who were the ancestors of what became the north African nations and Egypt.  As far as we know, these other sons (and nations) of Ham did not suffered God's judgment for Ham's transgression. 

(c) it could be God's [Moses'] way of explaining the state of affairs of the Canaanite nations during his time as exemplified in Deut 12:29-31 above.  

In any case, Noah prophesised that Ham's son Canaan would become the lowliest of servants (servant of servants) to both his uncles', Shem and Japheth, descendants. 

Shem: Noah's blessing on Shem could be missed if one reads too quickly.  It is interesting that Noah did not bless Shem but blessed Yahweh, the God of Shem.  From this blessing, the descendants of Shem would uniquely possess the knowledge of God through which God's redemptive plan would be fulfilled.  Canaan would become the slaves of the Shemites as detailed in Genesis 14:1-4 and 1 Kings 9:20-21.  

Japheth: Japheth would have the largest numbers of descendants (May God enlarge Japheth) and would ultimately include the inhabitants of Asia and Europe (this will be discussed in the next chapter).  Noah also mentioned that Japheth will "dwell in the tents of Shem".  The Hebrew word for "dwell" is שׁכן (shakan), which also can mean tabernacle.  It could mean that the descendants of Japheth would adopt the cultural and religious practices of the Shemites.  Again, Canaan was to become the slaves of the descendants of Japheth as well as seen in the later fulfilment when the Phoenicians became the slaves to Greeks and Romans.

Ham's Curse as Justification for Slavery?

During the European and American slavery periods, people have attempted to use Ham's (or more correctly, Canaan's) curse to justify slavery.  They deliberately mis-translated the name Ham to mean "black" through its Egyptian word origin and sought to justify enslavement of the Africans.  This is totally bizzare as not all descendants of Ham were black-skinned as can be seen from the Canaanites and Egyptians.  There is no room to use the Bible to justify the enslavement of any races.

Death of Noah

Chapter 9 ends with the death of Noah who died at the age of 950 years old.  He would be the last of the patriarchs that lived to such a long age.

Genesis 7 and 8 - The Flood

Based on Chapter 7 and 8 of Genesis, I have summarised the timeline and the critical activities in the following chart (adapted from Matthew Kneisler at www.arksearch.com):

In total, Noah, his family and the animals spent a total of 378 days in the ark.

The Flood: Universal or Local? 

There are protracted debates over the question whether the flood that occurred during Noah's time was local or universal.  Unlike the identity of the Sons of God in Chapter 6 where it is not critical on the view one holds, the Bible here clearly, in my view, showed that the flood was universal.  There are many reasons for holding this view.

If the flood was local, there will be no need for God to gather all the animals to the ark nor for Noah to build the ark in the first place.  He could have moved Noah, his family and the animals to another place where the flood did not impact.  Afterall, they had 120 years to do just that.  

If the flood was local, in the same vein, the rest of the people could have moved further away from the local flood area by foot or by some form of flotation devices.  Surely, some could have survived the flood if it was local.

The language in chapter 7 and 8 also make a local flood a little hard to grapple with.  The Bible mentioned the following:

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. [Gen 7:19]

The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. [Gen 7:20]

The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days. [Gen 7:24]

and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased. [Gen 8:3]

The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. [Gen 8:5]

People who argue against a universal flood do so for "scientific" reasons (you can see Hugh Ross' arguments here).  It's interesting that some of them defer to the scientific "evidences" against a local flood and yet in the same breath, reject the scientific "evidences" for evolution.

To me, the strongest evidence for a universal flood is the promise made to Noah by God at the end of the flood in Gen 8:21-22

and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.  While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."      

If it was a local flood, then God has not kept His promise as there were records of deadly local floods since then.  Some try to circumvent this by saying that unlike the Noah's flood which destroyed every living thing, the subsequent local floods did not.  My rebuttal is that why do these people insist on reading the term "every living thing" in Gen 8:22 literally but not the "all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered" statement in Gen 7:19.  You can't have it both ways in a single narrative. 

Here are other interesting points from Chapter 7 and 8:

(1) In Genesis 7:2-3, an elaboration of the gathering of the animals was revealed.  Besides the gathering of one pair (male and female) of the animals, God instructed Noah to further gathering 7 pairs of clean animals.  The Bible did not explain the purpose but we do know that one pair of each of the clean animals were offered as burnt offering to God after the flood (Genesis 8:20).  The interesting thing to note here is that before the Mosaic Law, it was apparent that people during Noah's time did know the categorisation of clean and unclean animals.  This bolster the view that Cain and Abel did know what was expected of them in terms of the sacrifices that was demanded by God.

(2) The flood was caused from 2 sources: (a) all the fountains of the great deep burst open and (b) the floodgates of the sky were opened, both on the same day.  The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights and while it is not mentioned in the Bible, it is most probable that the fountains of the great deep also continued to pour forth water for the same duration as the Bible mentioned in Gen 8:2 that the same fountains of the deep were closed only at the end of the flood. 

(3) Recall a previous post discussing the role Methuselah, Noah's grandfather, played in the timeline of the flood.  Based on the genealogy in Genesis 5, Methuselah died in the year the flood came upon the earth.  His name ([his] death, shall bring) was actually a prophetic message and some have speculated that his death actually triggered the rain (Gen 7:6) and Noah was graciously given an additional 7 days (Gen 7:10) to mourn the death of Methuselah.  Just an interesting bit for you to chew on...

(4) Given such a catacylsmic event, it would be seared in the memories of the Noah and his family, and that this event would have been passed down to the subsequent generations.  And indeed they were.  However, people assumed that later accounts copied from the earlier accounts, that the Genesis account of the flood was copied from the earlier Babylonian myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh.  It is interesting that even in wikipedia, the contributors chose to record this one act of "plagarism" to only the Genesis account and not the more than 20 flood accounts there.

(5) If we assume that accounts get more embellished the later they are recorded, then the Genesis account would get the right to be the oldest account.  There was no embellishment in the Genesis account, the detailed dimensions of the ark was recorded and shown to make sense from the stability point of view, and the time intervals between each significant flood event were also "painstakingly" recorded.  This is in stark contrast to others as you can read from the wikipedia reference.

(6) Genesis 8:1 records yet another expression of anthropomorphism where the Bible seems to hint that God has forgotten about Noah.  It is interesting to note that this particular verse seldom gets pick on.

(7) The receding of the flood waters seem to have occurred naturally.  The water also apparently did not "return" to the fountains of the deep since the Bible only recorded that God closed them (Gen 8:2).  So where did all the water went?  Based on the timeline above, the waters would have had 331 days to evaporate and at the same time, the weight of all these waters would have drastically change the topology of the earth somewhat, with new valleys and mountains being created by the force of the waters.  This 331 days would seem to be unnecessary if it was only a local flood.

(8) Noah's method of checking whether the water has receded and the choice of birds used are intriguing.  It also help draw out the important lesson that humans need to play their part in the overall plan of God.  Noah obviously did not sit in the ark waiting for God to tell him that the water had receded.  He took the responsibility and the active role to find that out for himself.  Once Noah had done his part, God stepped in immediately to instruct him what needed to be done.

I will talk about Genesis 8:15-22 together with the next chapter to explain the 2nd covenant found in the Bible - The Noahic Covenant. 

Genesis 6 (Part Two) - The State of Noah and God's "Regret"

The Two Different States of Noah

This post today will attempt to clear a common misconception about one of the most familiar character of Sunday School - Noah.  This common misconception stems from the way the chapter divisions have been implemented in Genesis.  As I have mentioned in a previous post, Moses compiled Genesis from 11 books of records.  There is a break between verse 8 and 9 of Chapter 6.  To recap, Genesis 5:1 to 6:8 is the Records of the Generations of Adam with Genesis 6:9 to 9:29 as the Records of the Generations of Noah.

My contention is that the state of Noah at the end of Genesis 6:8 is very different from the one at the beginning of Genesis 6:9 because of the 2 different Records. 

In the Records of the Generations of Adam, it records that "the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (verse 5).  A plain reading of the text suggests that Noah was amongst those men described in this verse.  We can confirm this hypothesis in verse 8 when the Bible said that "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD".  The word חן (hen - gutteral h) can be translated as favour, grace or charm depending on the context.  In the 64 instances in the Old Testament that it has been translated as favour or grace, the context suggests that it was unmerited.  This gives us an indication that through God's sovereign will, He elected to show grace to Noah and led him to repent of his wickedness that was pervasive on the earth during that time.  The purpose?  To ensure that God's plan of redemption announced in Genesis Chapter 3 remains intact.  The liberals will protest God's "unfairness" in this arbitrary choice but the alternate view should be that God's demand for justice meant that none on earth at that time had any excuse not to merit God's wrath due to their wickedness.  Remember that Adam who had personally commune with God was alive on the earth as God's witness all the way to the ninth generation of Lamech, Noah's father, till he was 56 years-old.  Anyway, in all likelihood, it's not just Noah that was saved since God would have to extend His unmerited grace to 4 women, the wives of Noah and his 3 sons.

The Records of the Generation of Noah opens the account of Noah describing the state after he was redeemed by God.  Hence, the Bible starts this new narrative declaring that "Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God".  This does not mean that Noah was perfect (as translated by KJV) but that he fared better than the rest of humankind.  How do we know?  Right after the Flood, Noah was recorded to have been drunk with wine made from the vine that he himself has planted.  Besides the obvious break in the narrative as recorded by the term "These are the records of the generations of Noah", the other tell-tale sign is the term used describing God.  In verses 3-8, the personal name of God, Yahweh, was used.  From verses 9 to the end of Chapter 6, the common term for God, El, was used. (Those observant readers will pick up that the personal name of God was used in Chapter 7 but we will leave that to the next post.)

The Bible also records that Noah had 3 sons: Shem ("name"), Ham ("hot" or "warm") and Japheth ("opened" / "enlarged" or "fair" / "beautiful").  From Genesis 9:22-24 and 10:21, we can determine that Shem was the first born followed by Japheth, with Ham as the youngest son.  However, the hebrew in Genesis 10:21 apparently allows for the interpretation that Japheth could be the first born instead (case of reading that Shem was "the older brother of Japheth" or that Shem was "the brother of Japheth, the elder").  That Shem is mentioned first in most passages is an indication that the promised seed will come through the line of Shem and, if Japheth was the first born, followed the oft-repeated theme in the Bible that the first borns usually did not gain prominence in the Bible.  That Ham is usually mentioned next even though he was the youngest is an indication of his notoriety which we will encounter later. 

God's Regret  

The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.  The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." (verses 6-7) 

The word נחם (nacham) can be translated as to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted.  It is the same word used for the proper name of Noah.

Many critics have taken this passage to imply that God regretted His decision to create Adam and Eve.  They questioned God's immutability, that He does not change.  I think this is unnecessary.  Perhaps the best internal evidence is found in 1 Samuel Chapter 15 in verses 10-11, 28-29 and 35.

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands."

So Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you.  Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. 

It would seem that there is a contradiction here with regards to whether God changes His mind or not.  As I have mentioned before, this is anthropomorphism - the attribution of human characteristics to a non-human entity, in this case of God.  In the case of Genesis 6:6-7, it is a way of expressing, albeit inadequately, that God can respond in a particular manner to change in behaviour made by His creation.  It is inadequate in the sense the God transcends the time domain.  This is explained in Revelation 1:8

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." 
 
This means that God already knew that humankind would end up in the sorry state during Noah's time, in the same way that He knew that Adam and Eve would fall.  The comforting thing to me is that since God already knew that the people during Noah's time would not repent, He nevertheless sovereignly decided that humankind would be given another 120 years to turn back.  This demonstrated God's long-suffering loving kindness and to tell humankind that they were without excuse.  This was the same approach that God took with Adam and Eve in their fall from grace and Cain in murdering Abel.

The State of the World During Noah's Time

The state of the world during Noah's time was mentioned twice in Chapter 6 - once in the Records of the Generations of Adam (verse 5) and once in the Records of the Generations of Noah (verses 11-12)  

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [Verse 5]  

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.  God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. [Verses 11-12]  

While it seems like a repetition in the context of Chapter 6, this is not the case if we look at this from the context of these 2 different Records of Generations.  The emphasis in both descriptions is the pervasiveness of evil on the earth in the language (every intent, only evil continually, all flesh).  

This was the basis of God's judgment upon the earth and the whole humankind.  The judgment will come in the form of a universal flood as spelt out in verse 17 when God said:  

Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

I will mention more about the universality of the flood in the next chapter.  However, the certainty of God's judgment can be seen from the repetition of God's pronouncement in this verse.   

The Construction of the Ark

The key features of the Ark are as follows: 

a. It was made of gopher-wood.   The word "gopher" is transliterated from Hebrew as the actual meaning is uncertain.  The Septuagint translated this as "square timber".  Other modern versions like NIV, NRSV and NET translated this as cypress wood. 

b. The dimensions was approximately 140m (length), 23m (breadth) and 14m (height).  This is based on the most conservative estimate that 1 cubit = 18 inches. 

c. It has 3 decks, with a window at the top possibly for air circulation and the door at the side. 

d.  The ark is not a ship and it was not meant to function as one.  The Hebrew word for ark "tebah" can also mean "box".  Outside of the Flood, the only other time this term is used is the wicker basket used to hold baby Moses.  Interestingly, this basket was also covered over with pitch (and tar).  

God's Instructions Regarding the Ark  

Besides Noah, his 3 sons and their wives, God instructed Noah to bring in 2 of every kind of living things of all flesh (birds, animals, creeping things) into the ark, one male and one female.  Noah did not have to go out to gather all of them.  Verse 20 stated that the animals "will come to you to keep them alive".

Noah was also told to bring some of all food, both for the human beings and the animals since both were vegetarians/herbivorous before the Flood.

God's Covenant with Noah and His Response

In verse 18, the first mention of the word "covenant" (beriyth) is made here in the Bible with Noah as the key beneficiary.  Noah's response to God is worth noting.  

Remember in Genesis 2:6 where it is hinted that there was then no rain during the pre-Flood era: 

But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.  

Hence, could you imagine the extreme ridicule that Noah would have had to endure from the people then for building an ark for a larger part of the 120 years that God gave humankind at that point of time to repent?  We know from 2 Peter 2:5 that Noah not only built the ark but was also preaching to the people, probably to join him in the ark.  The Bible can something be a matter-of-fact to a fault but we should be sensitive to the fact that Noah did not waver a bit during this 120 years.  I think Hebrews says it best in Chapter 11 verse 7:  

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

And thus Genesis Chapter 6 also ended "matter-of-factly" with verse 22:

Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did. 

Genesis 6 (Part One) - The Sons of God

I would like to take Genesis Chapter 6 in several parts given that there are quite differing views here regarding (1) the cause of God’s anger to justify wiping the entire human race with the Flood and (2) the state of Noah when he was chosen by God to build the ark to continue the human race.

For this segment, I would like to concentrate on verses 1-4 which has generated contrasting views amongst many Christians.  Having carefully considered all the views, I have come to my own preferred conclusion that fits more logically to God’s character and other passages of the Bible.  However, you are free to disagree since belief in one view or another will not change the fundamental essence of the Biblical message.

Here is the controversial passage in full: 

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.  Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.  Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 

In trying to understand the first 4 verses of Chapter 6, we need to understand the meaning of the 2 terminologies within, namely, sons of God and daughters of men in verse 2, and how they are linked to the Nephilim and mighty men described in verse 4.

From these 4 verses, 3 views have spawned on the key phrase of the Bible, sons of God, - (a) The Angels (cosmological mixed) view, (b) the Line of Seth (religiously mixed) view and (c) the Tyrants (sociologically mixed) view.  I don't intend to describe in details the 3 views as there are many already available on the internet (just google "Genesis 6 Interpretation" and you get the picture).  You can access this site to get a brief description of the various views.  What I intend to do highlight some of the points of the various views.   

The Tyrants / Line of Seth (Human) Views

Both these views take a human view of the term, sons of God (there is an alternate demon-possessed Tyrants view which we will not discussed here).  After doing much reading of the various views, I come to the conclusion that the main motivation for adopting a human view of the term, sons of God, is purely to avoid the alternative connotation, i.e., of angels, with the aim of not introducing doctrinal or theological difficulties.

In the Line of Seth view, proponents argued that the sons of God referred to the godly line of Seth while the daughters of men referred to the ungodly line of Cain.  God's anger was kindled because the righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society.

Firstly, equating sons of God as the godly line of Seth is reading too much into the text.  (1) In the line of Seth, only Enoch was explicitly mentioned in the Bible to have "walked with God".  (2) To have a statement, "began to call upon the name of the Lord", after the birth of Enosh to Seth does not necessary imply that the entire line of Seth was godly.  Furthermore, we should note that this statement could be translated into something diametrically different (see post). (3) Even in the case where Noah "found favour in the eyes of the Lord", my opinion is that this had nothing whatsoever to do with Noah but grace shown by God to him.  In summary, there is nothing in the Bible to explicitly equate sons of God with the line of Seth, godly or otherwise notwithstanding.

I have already mentioned in an earlier post that Moses compiled Genesis from 11 books or records of generations (see here).  To read a "flow" of chapter 4 into chapter 5 is unfortunate.  The term sons of God is used for those who are a direct creation of God.  Hence the angels are called sons of God.  In the human line, only Adam was called a son of God.  The rest of Adam's descendants are called sons of men.  In the New Testament, Christians are called sons of God because of their new birth (or creation) in Christ (Luke 20:35-37, Romans 8:13-15, Romans 18-20, Galatians 3:25-27).  Cain was also a son of Adam so it is inconsistent that people don't want to link the line of Cain to constitute the sons of God.  In summary, this "implication" that the line of Seth constitute the sons of God cannot be inferred from the Bible.

In the similar way that Enoch does not imply the entire line of Seth was godly, the mention of the actions of Cain and Lamech also do not imply that the entire line of Cain was ungodly since the Bible gave no such indications.  If we try to read into the meanings behind the names, we can also make the assertion that there were godly people in the line of Cain (e.g., Enoch and Methushael). 

Even we accept the premise that the sons of God equal godly line of Seth, linking daughters of men to ungodly line of Cain is even more dubious.  Thomas Howe linked it from a simplistic use of the word "good" / "beautiful" in reference to the daughter of men (Gen 6:2) to Naamah, a descendant of the line of Cain (Gen 4:22) and ultimately to the assertion that daughters of men were the ungodly line of Cain.  This is extremely tenuous and ignores the fate of the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve borned after Cain and Seth.  This view also make no mention of who did the daughters of God (daughters of the line of Seth) marry.  The language of verse 2 is decidedly one-way, that is, the sons of God tooks wives (the daughters of men) for themselves, whomever they chose.  

Furthermore, Genesis only mentioned that "the sons of God [Seth] saw that the daughters of men [Cain] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose".  No mention was made of the daughters of God marrying the sons of men that should have logically taken place if the Line of Seth view is adopted.  

To me, the archille heel of the Line of Seth view is why would God made the statement in verse 3 that His Spirit will not strive with men forever just on the basis that the godly sons of Seth married the ungodly daughters of Cain and dictated that humankind has 120 years left till the Flood?  Why would the sons of God be termed as "godly" [line of Seth] if they married "ungodly" women [line of cain]?? 

Verses 5-7 are instructive in pointing out the reason for the Flood and it could possibly have nothing to do with whatever -mixed views we may have.  But hold that thought till I have explained the Angels view. 

The Angels View 

The Angels or more precisely the Fallen Angels view is the oldest and will result from a direct literal reading from the text.  My personal view is that verses 1-7 is actually a 2-parts narrative.

Verses 1-4 describes that the fallen angels (sons of God) came to procreate with daughters of men (in general and not of Cain line only).  Proponents of this view pointed out that this was probably Satan's plan to thwart God's plan to corrupt the human race so that the seed of the woman will not be able to bruise Satan's head.  Out of the union came the Nephilim and mighty men.  There are many interpretation of what Nephilim means depending on the view one holds.  The good thing is that this term is mentioned one other time in Numbers 13:32-33.  While the passage does not give the meaning of the word Nephilim, one characteristic we can conclude was that they were men of great size and the Israelites were like grasshoppers in the Nephilim' sight.  That is the reason why KJV translate Nephilim as giants.  

The other issue is that why were there mentioning of Nephilim after the flood if only Noah and his family survived the Flood (specifically in Numbers 13:32-33). Actually, the spies who were with Joshua did not see any Nephilim.  The mentioning of the sons of Anakim are part of the Nephilim was part of the overall exaggeration on the part of the spies.  I say this because (1) the parenthesis was not in the original Hebrew text and (2) the Septuagint also did not have this parenthesis.

Since we are not able to find further clues from the Bible regarding this term, Nephilim, can we find any clues from the ancient translations?  If we look at the Septuagint, the term Nephilim is translated as γιγαντες (gigantes).  This was similarly translated into English as giants by Brenton.  This is unfortunate as the term gigantes means more than giants in Greek mythology (see references in Wikipedia and Theoi.com).  The use of this term by the Septuagint translators lent weight to the Angels view in that the gigantes in the Greek Mythology had a supernatural undertone.  

Two New Testament passages also shed light to what actually happened in the days of Noah.  Since they are critical to our understanding, I re-produced them in full here:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [2 Peter 2:4-5] 

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 6-7]

The passage in 2 Peter clearly linked angels who sinned to the point that He did not spare the ancient world during Noah's time.  What had these angels done to warrant God's punishment?  This is where we turn to the passage in Jude.  The angels mentioned in Jude "did not keep their proper domain, but abandoned their proper abode".  These angels did, "in the same way", what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did.  They "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh".  The Angels view asserts that the "strange flesh" that the angels went after were that of the humankind.  Why strange?  Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry.  Hence the fact that the sons of God "took wives for themselves, whomever they chose" was going for strange flesh for that was not what angels were created to do. 

Objections to the Angels View

(1) The first objection is taken immediately from Jesus' quotation in Matthew 22:30.  Jesus himself mentioned that angels do not marry.  Some Angels view proponents make the assertion that it did not mean that Jesus said that they could not pro-create.  However, within the context of what Jesus said, He did seemed to allude that angels do not have sex too.  Others have made the distinction between the angels in heaven and that of the fallen angels.  My take is that when God created angels, they did not need to eat or drink nor need to pro-create.  However, they were recorded in the Bible to have ate and drank (see Genesis 18:1-8).  Hence there is no reason to rule out emphatically why the angels cannot attempt to have sex.  Angels are also not sexless.  Angels are always described in the masculine form and appear as young men in the Bible.  One other thing to note that these angels that had sex were already fallen and their fallen status was not because that they had sex with the humankind.  They fell when they chose to follow Satan to rebel against God (see Revelation 12:3-4).      

(2) The term "sons of God" did not always meant angels in the Old Testament (I have already explained what "sons of God" meant in the New Testament context earlier).  Critics pointed to Hosea 1:10 as an example:

Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and in the place where it is said to them, "You are not My people," it will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."

Two points to note here: (a) the Hosea's passage did not use the exact term that Genesis and Job passages had - "bene elohim" but more importantly (b) the Hosea's passage clearly identify "the sons of Israel" as "the sons of the living God".  Critics have to decide that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 either mean angels as in identified in Job or Israelites as identified in Hosea.  Clearly, the Genesis passage does not identify "sons of God" as "sons of Seth".  This is the interpretation imposed outside of the Bible passage context.

(3) Critics finally asked why were the humankind punished for what the fallen angels did.  Here, we go back to verses 5 and 11-12 of Genesis 6:

Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.   

Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.  God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.  

Clearly, the fallen angels' actions were only part of the story.  Humankind did the rest.  The 2nd Peter and Jude passages that we talked about earlier also clearly stated that these fallen angels did not escape punishment from God.

In summary, verses 1-4 state that the fallen angels, probably under Satan's order, sought to corrupt the seed of the woman to prevent God's judgment from happening by marrying and having relations with the women.  Together with this development, men's wickedness became great, so great that God pronounced His judgment.  Even in His anger, he had hoped for restoration and gave humankind a long 120 years to repent (verse 3).  Contrary to certain viewpoints, this was not a limitation of the number of year that human beings can live.  If it were, then God (and Moses) was obviously wrong since even Jacob lived all the way up to 147 years-old (Genesis 47:28).  If you need further convincing, 1 Peter 3:18-20 alluded to this:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.  

Verse 3 stated that the offsprings of these unnatural union were the Nephilim (many translate as "fallen ones") and they were described as "gibborim", translated as mighty men in English.  Moses "sarcastically" labelled that they "were of old, men of renown".  The term "in those days and also after that" in verse 4 does not mean that the Nephilim were on the earth before the inter-mixing nor that they were there after the Flood (as explained earlier).  Rather, it is a repetition that the Nephilim were the product of the inter-marriage between the fallen angels and human women in those days and also after that. 

As I have mentioned from the very beginning, whatever your viewpoint on this issue, it will not have any bearing on the key doctrines of Christianity.  However, it is the plain reading of the text and the "best" view in my opinion to make the readings of other passages like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude less contrived.  Most importantly, all agree that the earth at that time was entirely corrupt and God pronounced judgment on the earth.  

Was Noah the exception?  Find out next.

Happy New Year ahead!