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!