And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
1. men ] Heb. ha-adam, i.e. “the man.” It is not the proper name “Adam”; nor is it “the man” as an individual as in Gen 3:24, Gen 4:1: but “the man” collectively, in the sense of “the human race,” LXX . This use of the word is different from anything in the Paradise Narrative: see Gen 5:1.
began to multiply ] No account is taken of ( a) the description of the growth of the population, and of ( b) the genealogies of Cainites and Sethites, which have occupied chaps. Gen 4:17-25; Gen 4:5.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Ch. Gen 6:1 to Gen 9:29. The Deluge
1 4. The sons of God and the daughters of men ] This short strange passage serves as a kind of Preface to the Narrative of the Deluge. There is nothing to be found quite like it elsewhere in the O.T. It obviously is not a continuation of the previous chapter; and, except for a possible, though most disputable, allusion in the mention of the 120 years ( Gen 6:3), its contents do not presuppose the catastrophe of the Flood. In all probability, we should be right in regarding these four verses as a fragment from some quite independent source of early Hebrew tradition, most certainly distinct from the regular materials represented in J and P.
The mention of the marriages between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” is clearly a survival of early Hebrew mythology. It accounted for the existence of an Israelite tradition respecting a primitive race of giants. There are traces, in the literature of other countries, of a similar belief in fabulous giants, or semi-divine heroes, who lived in a far-remote age of antiquity.
The tradition preserved in this brief fragment is condensed, and the language is not free from obscurity. There are, however, allusions in other parts of the O.T. (see note on Gen 6:4) to the race of giants which was believed not to have been extinct at the time of the occupation of Palestine by the Israelite tribes. Such a belief was incompatible with the tradition that all the primaeval dwellers in the world, except Noah and his family, perished in the waters of the Flood (Gen 7:21-23). If, therefore, the impious unions of angels with the daughters of men were considered to account for the existence of a giant human race surviving in later times, the tradition which recorded them must have been quite distinct from, and independent of, the tradition of a universal Flood.
As an isolated survival of Hebrew mythology, it furnishes an instructive reminder, that the popular ideas of Israel concerning primaeval times may be presumed, at least originally, to have resembled those of other nations. They were pervaded by fanciful and legendary elements. We must realize that the spiritual teaching of the religion of Jehovah was responsible for an extensive purgation of the traditions which described the beginnings of the world and of the Israelite people. Polytheistic and unedifying materials were most successfully excluded in the compilation of the Hebrew sacred books. The result is simple, dignified, and elevating. We have in these four verses a glimpse of the material which for the most part was rigorously discarded.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
– The Growth of Sin
3. dyn be down, strive, subdue, judge. bashagam inasmuch, as also. The rendering in their error requires the pointing beshagam, and the plural form of the following pronoun. It is also unknown to the Septuagint.
4. neplym assailants, fellers, men of violence, tyrants.
Having traced the line of descent from Adam through Sheth, the seed of God, to Noah, the author proceeds to describe the general spread and growth of moral evil in the race of man, and the determination of the Lord to wipe it away from the face of the earth.
Gen 6:1-4
There are two stages of evil set forth in Gen 6:1-4 – the one contained in the present four verses, and the other in the following. The former refers to the apostasy of the descendants of Sheth, and the cause and consequences of it. When man began to multiply, the separate families of Cain and Sheth would come into contact. The daughters of the stirring Cainites, distinguished by the graces of nature, the embellishments of art, and the charms of music and song, even though destitute of the loftier qualities of likemindedness with God, would attract attention and prompt to unholy alliances. The phrase sons of God, means an order of intelligent beings who retain the purity of moral character originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job 38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they neither marry nor are given in marriage Mat 22:30. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.
The sons of God, therefore, are those who are on the Lords side, who approach him with duly significant offerings, who call upon him by his proper name, and who walk with God in their daily conversation. The figurative use of the word son to denote a variety of relations incidental, and moral as well as natural, was not unfamiliar to the early speaker. Thus, Noah is called the son of five hundred years Gen 5:32. Abraham calls Eliezer ben–beyty, son of my house Gen 15:3. The dying Rachel names her son Ben-oni, son of my sorrow, while his father called him Benjamin, son of thy right hand Gen 35:18. An obvious parallel to the moral application is presented in the phrases the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The word generations toledot, Gen 5:1) exhibits a similar freedom and elasticity of meaning, being applied to the whole doings of a rational being, and even to the physical changes of the material world Gen 2:4. The occasion for the present designation is furnished in the remark of Eve on the birth of Sheth. God hath given me another seed instead of Habel. Her son Sheth she therefore regarded as the son of God. Accordingly, about the birth of his son Enosh, was begun the custom calling upon the name of the Lord, no doubt in the family circle of Adam, with whom Sheth continued to dwell. And Enok, the seventh from Adam in the same line, exhibited the first striking example of a true believer walking with God in all the intercourse of life. These descendants of Sheth, among whom were also Lamek who spoke of the Lord, and Noah who walked with God, are therefore by a natural transition called the sons of God, the godlike in a moral sense, being born of the Spirit, and walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit Psa 82:6; Hos 2:1.
Some take the daughters of man to be the daughters of the Cainites only. But it is sufficient to understand by this phrase, the daughters of man in general, without any distinction of a moral or spiritual kind, and therefore including both Cainite and Shethite females. And they took them wives of all whom they chose. The evil here described is that of promiscuous intermarriage, without regard to spiritual character. The godly took them wives of all; that is, of the ungodly as well as the godly families, without any discrimination. Whom they chose, not for the godliness of their lives, but for the goodliness of their looks. Ungodly mothers will not train up children in the way they should go; and husbands who have taken the wrong step of marrying ungodly wives cannot prove to be very exemplary or authoritative fathers. Up to this time they may have been consistent as the sons of God in their outward conduct. But a laxity of choice proves a corresponding laxity of principle. The first inlet of sin prepares the way for the flood-gates of iniquity. It is easy to see that now the degeneracy of the whole race will go on at a rapid pace.
Gen 6:3
My Spirit – , in contradistinction to the spirit of disobedience which, by the fall, obtained entrance into the soul of man. Shall not strive with man forever. To strive dyn is to keep down, rule, judge, or strive with a man by moral force. From this passage we learn that the Lord by his Spirit strives with man up to a certain point. In this little negative sentence streams out the bright light of Gods free and tender mercy to the apostate race of man. He sends his Spirit to irradiate the darkened mind, to expostulate with the conscience, to prompt and strengthen holy resolve, and to bring back the heart, the confidence, the affection to God. He effects the blessed result of repentance toward God in some, who are thus proved to be born of God. But it is a solemn thought that with others he will not strive perpetually. There is a certain point beyond which he will not go, for sufficient reasons known fully to himself, partly to us. Two of these we are to notice for our instruction: First, he will not touch the free agency of his rational creatures. He can put no force on the volitions of men. An involuntary or compulsory faith, hope, love, obedience, is a contradiction in terms; and anything that could bear the name can have no moral validity whatsoever. Secondly, after giving ample warning, instruction, and invitation, he will, as a just judgment on the unbelieving and the impenitent, withdraw his Spirit and let them alone. The antediluvian world was fast approaching to this point of final perversity and abandonment.
Inasmuch as he is also flesh – , in contradistinction to spirit, the breath of life which the Almighty breathed Into his nostrils. These two parts of mans complex being were originally in true and happy adjustment, the corporeal being the fit organ and complement of the spiritual as it is in him. But now by the fall the flesh has gained the upper hand, and the spirit is in the bondage of corruption. The fact that he is flesh also as well as spirit, has therefore come out into sad prominence. The doctrine of the carnal mind in the Epistle to the Romans Rom. 8 is merely the outgrowth of the thought expressed in this passage.
His days shall be an hundred and twenty years. – His days are the days of man, not the individual, but the race, with whom the Lord still strives. Hence, they refer to the duration, not of the life of an individual, but of the existence of the race. From this we learn that the narrative here reverts to a point of time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, recorded in the close of the preceding passage as there were only a hundred years from their birth to the deluge. This is according to the now well-known method of Scripture, when it has two lines of events to carry on. The former narrative refers to the godly portion of mankind; this to the ungodly remnant.
Not forever will the Lord strive with man; but his longsuffering will still continue for one hundred and twenty years. Meanwhile he does not leave himself or his clemency without a witness. He sent Noah with the message of warning, who preached by his voice, by his walking with God, and also by his long labor and perseverance in the building of the ark. The doomed race, however, filled up the measure of their iniquity, and when the set number of years was accomplished, the overwhelming flood came.
Gen 6:4
Two classes of men, with strong hand and strong will, are here described. The giants, the well-known men of great stature, physical force, and violent will, who were enabled by these qualities to claim and secure the supremacy over their fellow-men. Had been in the land in those days. In the days when those intermarriages were beginning to take place, the warriors were asserting the claim of might. Violence and rapine were becoming rampant in the land. And after that. The progeny of the mixed marriages were the second and subsequent class of leading men. The sons of God are here contradistinguished from the nephilim, or giants, who appear therefore to have belonged to the Cainites. The offspring of these unhallowed unions were the heroes, the gallants, the mighty men, the men of renown. They were probably more refined in manners and exalted in thought than their predecessors of pure Cainite descent. Men of name, whose names are often in mens mouths, because they either deserved or required to be named frequently on account of their influential or representative character. Being distinguished from the common herd by prominent qualities or memorable exploits, they were also frequently marked out by a special name or surname, derived from such trait of character or deed of notoriety. Of old ( me’olam). This has been sometimes explained of the world, in the sense of aion; but the meaning is too late for the present passage. The phrase uniformly means of old, covering a more or less extensive length of time. This note of time implies a writer probably after the deluge, who could speak of antediluvian affairs, as happening of old.
It is remarkable that we have no hint of any kind of government in the antediluvian world. It is open to us to suppose that the patriarchal polity would make its appearance, as it is an order based upon natural relations. But it is possible that God himself, being still present and manifest, was recognized as the governor. To him offerings were brought, and he deals with Cain on his first and second transgression. In that case the lawless violence of the strong and willful is to be regarded as rebellion, not only against the patriarchal rule, but the divine supremacy. A notice of civil law and government would not of course affect the authority of the book. But the absence of such notice is in favor of its divine origin. It is obvious that higher things than these have the attention of the sacred writer.
Gen 6:5-8
In these verse we are to conceive the 120 years of respite to be at an end. The iniquity of the race is now full, and the determination of the Lord is therefore announced, with a statement of the grounds on which it rests, and a glance at the individual to be excepted from the general destruction.
Gen 6:5
And God saw. – The course of the primeval world was a great experiment going on before the eye of God, and of all intelligent observers, and manifesting the thorough depravity and full-grown degeneracy of the fallen race, when left to the bent of its perverted inclinations. Every imagination ( yetser). Here the object of thought is distinguished from the thought itself. This is a distinction not generally or constantly recognized by the mental philosopher, though of essential importance in the theory of the mind. The thought itself is a real phase or attitude of mind; the form, idea, species, object of thought may have matter, real content, or it may not. Only evil every day. This is an unlimited condemnation of the state and process of the carnal man. The reason is obvious. Homage to God, to truth, to right, to love, does not reign in his heart; and the imaginations or purposes that are not regulated by this, however excellent and praiseworthy in other respects, are destitute of the first the essential principle of moral good. This is now made palpable to the eye of observation by the almost universal predominance of the ungodly spirit. This accordingly forms the ground of the divine procedure.
Gen 6:6
And it repented the Lord – that he had made man. The Scripture is frank and unreserved; some people would say, imprudent or regardless of misconstruction, in its statements of truth. Repentance ascribed to the Lord seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the Eternal Self-existent One. But the sublime dictate of the inspired word is, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? Num 23:19. In sooth, every act here recorded – the observation, the resolve, the exception – seems equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeableness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference with the order of nature, seems at variance with inflexibility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly, God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of personality, freedom, and holiness; and the passage before us is designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action, and thereby to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit, analogous at least to those of the human. And, lastly, to verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists between the liberty and the immutability of God. That change of state which is essential to will, liberty, and activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of the divine purpose.
Gen 6:7
I will wipe away man from the face of the soil. – The resolve is made to sweep away the existing race of man. Heretofore, individuals had departed this life. Adam himself had long since paid the debt of nature. These solemn testimonies to the universal doom had not made any salutary or lasting impression on the survivors. But now a general and violent destruction is to overtake the whole race – a standing monument of the divine wrath against sin, to all future generations of the only family saved.
From man to cattle, creeper and fowl of the sky. – These classes of animated nature being mingled up with man are involved in the same ruin with him. This is of a piece with the curse laid upon the serpent, which was the unconscious organ of the tempter. It is an instance of a law which runs through the whole course of nature, as we observe that it is the method of the divine government to allow for the time the suffering inflicted on an inferior animal, or even on a fellow-creature, by selfish passion. It has an appearance to some minds of harshness and unfairness. But we must remember that these animated creatures are not moral, and, therefore, the violent termination of their organic life is not a punishment; that the pain incidental to this, being apart from guilt, is in itself a beneficial provision for the conservation of life; and that it was not intended that the life of animals should be perpetual. The return of the land to a state of desolation by the destruction of animal and vegetable life, however, has its lesson for man, for whom ultimately all of this beauty and fertility were designed, and from whom it is now withdrawn, along with all the glories it foreshadows, as part of the punishment of his guilt. The tenant has become unworthy of the tabernacle, and accordingly he is dispossessed, and it is taken down and removed.
Gen 6:8
And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. – Noah and his family are the only exceptions to this sweeping destruction. Hitherto we have met with distant and indirect intimations of the divine favor, and significant deeds of regard and acceptance. Now for the first time grace itself finds a tongue to express its name. Grace has its fountain in the divine breast. The stream has been flowing forth to Adam, Eve, Habel, Henok, and others, we hope, unknown to fame. By the time it reaches Noah it has found a name, by which it is recognized among people to this day. It is opposed to works as a source of blessing. Whither grace comes there merit cannot be. Hence, we learn even from the case of Noah that original sin asserts its presence in the whole race of Adam. This completes the circle of saving doctrine in regard to God that comes down from the antediluvian times. He intimates that the seed of the woman, an individual pre-eminently so called, will bruise the serpents head. He clothes our first parents with coats of skin – an earnest and an emblem of the better, the moral clothing of the soul. He regards Habel and his offering. He accepts him that in faith does well. He translates Enok, who walked with him. His Spirit, we learn, has been striving with antediluvian man. Here are the Spirit of God and the seed of the woman. Here are clothing, regarding, accepting, translating. Here, then, is salvation provided and applied, begun, continued, and completed. And last, though not least, grace comes out to view, the eternal fountain of the whole. On the part of man, also, we have repenting, believing, confessing, offering, calling on the name of the Lord, and walking with God.
The two parts of the document which is now closed are as distinct from each other as it is from the following one. They combine, in fact, to form the needful preliminary to the fourth document. The genealogy brings us to the leading agent in the succeeding narrative; the description of the corruption of the human race furnishes the occasion for his agency. The third is therefore the prologue, as the fifth is the epilogue, to the fourth document, in which the main action lies.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gen 6:1-2
The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose
Sons of God different from the daughters of men
1.
In disposition.
2. In profession.
3. In moral character.
4. In eternal destiny. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Sons of Elohim and daughters of men
Opinions have differed greatly as to the meaning of the name Sons of God, or rather of Elohim. The rabbis, as was natural, from their love of the marvellous, took for granted that the fallen angels are meant; since nephilim is derived from the verb to fall. Hence Apocryphal Jewish literature assumes this constantly, while not a few writers of the most opposite schools still support this explanation, which, nevertheless, seems fanciful and ungrounded. The giants are not said to have been the sons of Elohim, and their name may as fitly be explained as referring to their falling upon their fellow men as by any mysterious connection with the rebel angels. Nor does the name sons of Elohim necessarily refer to angels at all; for the word Elohim is used elsewhere in Scripture of men. Thus, in Psa 82:1, we read that God judges in the midst of the Elohim, who are shown in the next verse to be those who judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked. The name is evidently given them from their office, in which they represented, in Israel, the supreme judge of the nation–Jehovah. Jewish interpreters generally adopt this meaning of the passage, believing that the great or mighty sons of Cain are contrasted with the lowlier daughters of Seth. It is, moreover, very doubtful if the word be ever applied in the Old Testament to angels. On the other hand, it is continually used of heathen idols, and hence it may well point in this particular case to intermarriages between the adherents of idolatry and the daughters of the race of Seth, and a consequent spread of heathenism, far and near, with its attendant violence and moral debasement. If, however, by the sons of Elohim we understand the worshippers of Jehovah, the daughters of men would mean those of the race of Cain. This interpretation, indeed, is now very generally adopted, and seems the most natural. We should, then, read the sons of the godly race took wives of the daughters of men. The children of such marriages sadly increased the prevailing corruption. They became gibborim, or fierce and cruel chiefs, filling the world with blood and tumult. It was to prevent the final triumph of evil, Scripture tells us, that the deluge was sent from God. (C. Geikie, D. D.)
Marriage to be sought of God by prayer
It came to pass, when men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God (men well qualified) saw the daughters of men (very lewd ones) that they were fair (that is all they aimed at), and, therefore, they took them wives (hand over head) of all which they chose; but, being not of Gods providing, they had better been without them. Thus, when men send out lusts to seek them wives, and unclean spirits to woo for them; when men send out ambition to make their houses great, and covetousness to join house to house and land to land; when men send out flattery, lying and deceitful speeches, and do not send out prayers and loud cries unto Almighty God to direct them in their choice, they may thank themselves if they meet with wives, but not such helpmeets as God otherwise intended for them. (J. Spencer.)
Unequal marriages abhorrent to God
We see how grievous a thing unequal marriages be, when the godly with the ungodly, the believing with the infidels, the religious with the superstitious, are unequally yoked–surely even so grievous to God, that for this cause especially the whole world was destroyed by the flood. The Lord is no changeling; He disliked it ever, and disliketh it still. It is a secret poison that destroyeth virtue more speedily than anything. Solomon was overthrown by the daughters of men, for all his wisdom. Jehoshaphat matched his son to Ahabs daughter, and it was his destruction. He forsook the way of the Lord, and wrought all wickedness in a full measure. Why? Because, saith the text, The daughter of Ahab was his wife. Ahab was wicked, but a wicked wife made him far worse, for she provoked him, saith the text. Be not unequally yoked with infidels, saith the apostle, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the believer with the infidel? It is a law of marriage that should not be broken, that it be in the Lord–that is, with His liking and in His fear–with such as be godly and hold the truth. Our children we allow not to marry against our wills, but our right we challenge to give a consent. And shall the children of God seek no consent of their Father in heaven to their marriages? But His consent He will never give to marry His enemy, and therefore do it not. It is not lawful; it is not expedient if it were lawful. The flood came to punish such disobedience, and forget it never. (Bishop Babington.)
Beauty a snare
Beauty is a dangerous bait, and lust is sharp-sighted. It is not safe gazing on a fair woman. How many have died of the wound in the eye! No one means hath so enriched hell as beautiful faces, Take heed our eyes be not windows of wickedness and loopholes of lust. (J. Trapp.)
Wrong unions
The mingling of that which is of God with that which is of man is a special form of evil, and a very effectual engine in Satans hand for marring the testimony of Christ on earth. This mingling may frequently wear the appearance of something very desirable; it may often look like a wider promulgation of that which is of God. Such is not the Divine method of promulgating with or of advancing the interests of those who ought to occupy the place of witnesses for Him on the earth. Separation from all evil is Gods principle; and this principle can never be infringed without serious damage to the truth. (C. H. M.)
The Cainites and the Sethites
You will remember that at this time there were two distinct races upon the earth–the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth; or, as we will call them, the Cainites and the Sethites. The latter were godly people; they worshipped and served the Lord; they kept up the observance of family prayer; they recognized, in fact, an unseen and spiritual kingdom; and they fashioned their lives, or endeavoured to fashion them, in accordance with their belief. The Cainites, on the contrary, cared for none of these things; they flung off the restraints of religion; they were the secularists and materialists of the antediluvian world. Whether there was an unseen kingdom, and a King to rule over it; whether there was such a thing as truth, or such a thing as righteousness, or even such a Being as God Himself, they did not care at all to inquire. These things might be, or might not be; but, at all events, there was the present visible, tangible, enjoyable condition of existence in which they found themselves placed; and of that they determined to make the best, without troubling themselves about difficult and abstruse questions which could probably never be solved. There is another observable thing, too, about these Cainites. Female names occur in their genealogies; and these female names are of such a character as indicates that especial attention had been given to attractiveness of personal appearance, and especial value set upon it by the women of this branch of the human family. Adah is one name: it means ornament–beauty. Zillah is another: it means shade, and seems to refer to the womans thick and clustering tresses, Naamah is a third: it means pleasing, and alludes, in all probability, to the fascination and winning attractiveness of manner possessed by the person who bore it. All this seems significant. We gather from it that the women of the Cainite race came into greater prominence, exercised a greater influence of a certain kind than the women of the Sethite race; were more obtrusive and less modest; wore more costly dresses, spent more time in adorning their persons, and gave themselves up to the cultivation and practice of feminine allurements. The recollection of this fact will enable us to understand better the statement of the text. Now, for some considerable time the two races kept completely apart; the Cainites went their way, the Sethites went theirs, and there was no intercourse to speak of between them. But after awhile the separation was removed. We are not informed how the change took place; it may have been through what we may call accidental circumstances, bringing the two races into contact; but it was more probably owing to a relaxation of religious principle on the part of the Sethites, a lowering of the spiritual tone, a departure from the ancient severity of their religious character, which threw them open to the assaults of temptation on the part of their worldly neighbours. And it was through the women of the Cainite race that the danger came in: the sons of God (that is, the worshippers of God–the Sethites) saw the daughters of men that they were fair. Their beauty attracted and ensnared them; their dress was exquisite; their manners were fascinating, if a trifle bold–unlike, they would say, the shy and retiring ways of the women of their own race; and they first fluttered round, and then fell into the net that was spread for them. And they took them wives of all which they chose. There is indicated in this language a simple following of their own will; there is no reference to God or to duty in the matter. The result was an intermingling of the two races, and a very rapid increase of the corruption of mankind. Possibly some of the Sethites, the sons of God, may have deceived themselves with fancying that they, by the infusion of their goodness, were going to raise from its spiritual degradation the Cainite family, and instruct them in the knowledge and the love of God. Ah, the snow as it falls upon the street may cherish the hope that it is going to cover the pathway with a robe of unsullied whiteness! The pure bright stream may fancy when it mingles its waters with those of some turbulent and turbid companion, that it is going to absorb the others foulness into its own immaculate purity! But what a miserable mistake this is! Good is indeed more potent than evil when it stands on the defensive and occupies its own ground; but it is feeble, it is powerless, it is soon overcome, when it allows itself to be drawn into the enemys territory, and to meet him as a friend. This seems to be the true explanation of the narrative to which our text belongs. And now the question arises, Has it any practical bearing upon ourselves, and upon the circumstances in which we are placed? We believe it has. In what did the criminality of these Sethites consist? In that perversion of the moral sense which led them to prefer external advantages, external attractions, to goodness. Yet how often we are tempted to prefer other things to this sterling quality, or at least to think that the absence of it is more than atoned for by the presence of exterior fascinations! Take, for instance, some favourite writer. He is profane, perhaps; he scoffs at religion, or at least sneers in a covert way. True, we say, apologetically; but how full of intellect he is! What a masterly hand he lays upon his subject! How magnificent are his descriptions, and how his thoughts roll forth in a grand overwhelming tide from the depths of his mind, sweeping all before them! Or that companion of ours, whom we have lately been warned against. Perhaps he is irreligious; perhaps he is a little loose, both in his habits and his notions. But how clever he is! No one ever feels dull in his company! Instances and proofs might easily be multiplied. Now, all this exactly corresponds to the fault, the sin of the sons of God, spoken of in our text. It is a criminal preference of external fascinations to the goodness which consists in recognition of God and in consecration to His service. It is natural, perhaps you will say. Granted; but the Christian ought to carry that about him which enables him to discriminate between the seeming and the real, and to know things, to a certain extent at least, as they really are. Our subject applies to companionship generally, and suggests the extreme importance of a right choice of associates. Many of us, of course, are thrown into unavoidable juxtaposition with those with whom we have no manner of sympathy, and whom we would gladly avoid if we could. The exigencies of business bring into the same office, or into the same pursuit, the pure and the impure, the godly and the ungodly; and nothing is more common than to hear right-minded young people complaining of the words which they are compelled to hear, or of the things which they are compelled to witness, in the place in which their lot is cast. But, after all, a man is safe if he is in the path of duty. It is the voluntary and not the enforced association which exercises a deleterious influence upon mind and character. But the subject suggests more particularly the effect of companionship between the sexes, and, more particularly still, it puts men on their guard against the fascinations of attractive and accomplished, but irreligious and unspiritual, women. (G. Calthrop, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VI
The children of God, among whom the true religion was at first
preserved, corrupt it by forming matrimonial connections with
irreligious women, 1, 2.
God, displeased with these connections and their consequences,
limits the continuance of the old world to one hundred and
twenty years, 3.
The issue of those improper connections termed giants, 4.
An affecting description of the depravity of the world, 5, 6.
God threatens the destruction of every living creature, 7.
Noah and his family find grace in his sight, 8.
The character and family of Noah, 9, 10.
And a farther description of the corruption of man, 11, 12.
Noah is forewarned of the approaching destruction of the
human race, 13;
and is ordered to build an ark for the safety of himself
and household, the form and dimensions of which are
particularly described, 14-16.
The deluge threatened, 17.
The covenant of God’s mercy is to be established between him
and the family of Noah, 18.
A male and female of all kinds of animals that could not live
in the waters to be brought into the ark, 19, 20.
Noah is commanded to provide food for their sustenance, 21;
and punctually follows all these directions, 22.
NOTES ON CHAP. VI
Verse 1. When men began to multiply] It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before. As there is a distinction made here between men and those called the sons of God, it is generally supposed that the immediate posterity of Cain and that of Seth are intended. The first were mere men, such as fallen nature may produce, degenerate sons of a degenerate father, governed by the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, and the pride of life. The others were sons of God, not angels, as some have dreamed, but such as were, according to our Lord’s doctrine, born again, born from above, Joh 3:3; Joh 3:5-6, c., and made children of God by the influence of the Holy Spirit, Ga 5:6. The former were apostates from the true religion, the latter were those among whom it was preserved and cultivated.
Dr. Wall supposes the first verses of this chapter should be paraphrased thus: “When men began to multiply on the earth, the chief men took wives of all the handsome poor women they chose. There were tyrants in the earth in those days and also after the antediluvian days powerful men had unlawful connections with the inferior women, and the children which sprang from this illicit commerce were the renowned heroes of antiquity, of whom the heathens made their gods.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Men, i.e. wicked men, the posterity of Cain, as appears from Gen 6:2; who are here called men, and the sons of men, by way of contempt, and of distinction; mere men, such as had only the natures and qualities of corrupt men, without the image of God.
Began to multiply, to wit, more than ordinarily; or more than the sons of God, because they practised polygamy, after the example of their predecessor, the ungodly Lamech, Gen 4:19.
Daughters were born unto them; so doubtless were sons also; but their daughters are here mentioned as one principal occasion of the sin noted in Gen 6:2, and of the following deluge.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply upon the face of the earth,…. Either mankind in general, or rather the posterity of Cain, who were mere natural men, such as they were when born into the world, and as brought up in it, destitute of the grace of God, and of the knowledge and fear of him; and who in proportion much more multiplied than the posterity of Seth, because of the practice of polygamy, which by the example of Lamech, one of that race, might prevail among them:
and daughters were born unto them; not daughters only, but sons also, though it may be more daughters than sons, or it may denote remarkable ones, for their beauty or immodesty, or both; and chiefly this is observed for the sake of what follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The genealogies in Gen 4 and 5, which trace the development of the human race through two fundamentally different lines, headed by Cain and Seth, are accompanied by a description of their moral development, and the statement that through marriages between the “ sons of God ” ( Elohim) and the “ daughters of men,” the wickedness became so great, that God determined to destroy the men whom He had created. This description applies to the whole human race, and presupposes the intercourse or marriage of the Cainites with the Sethites.
Gen 6:1-2 Gen 6:1-2 relates to the increase of men generally ( , without any restriction), i.e., of the whole human race; and whilst the moral corruption is represented as universal, the whole human race, with the exception of Noah, who found grace before God (Gen 6:8), is described as ripe for destruction (Gen 6:3 and Gen 6:5-8). To understand this section, and appreciate the causes of this complete degeneracy of the race, we must first obtain a correct interpretation of the expressions “sons of God” ( ) and “daughters of men” ( ). Three different views have been entertained from the very earliest times: the “sons of God” being regarded as ( a) the sons of princes, ( b) angels, ( c) the Sethites or godly men; and the “daughters of men,” as the daughters ( a) of people of the lower orders, ( b) of mankind generally, ( c) of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly or the children of God. Of these three views, the first, although it has become the traditional one in orthodox rabbinical Judaism, may be dismissed at once as not warranted by the usages of the language, and as altogether unscriptural. The second, on the contrary, may be defended on two plausible grounds: first, the fact that the “sons of God,” in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, and Job 38:7, and in Dan 3:25, are unquestionably angels (also in Psa 29:1 and Psa 89:7); and secondly, the antithesis, “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” Apart from the context and tenor of the passage, these two points would lead us most naturally to regard the “sons of God” as angels, in distinction from men and the daughters of men. But this explanation, though the first to suggest itself, can only lay claim to be received as the correct one, provided the language itself admits of no other. Now that is not the case. For it is not to angels only that the term “sons of Elohim,” or “sons of Elim,” is applied; but in Psa 73:15, in an address to Elohim, the godly are called “the generation of Thy sons,” i.e., sons of Elohim; in Deu 32:5 the Israelites are called His (God’s) sons, and in Hos 1:10, “sons of the living God;” and in Psa 80:17, Israel is spoken of as the son, whom Elohim has made strong. These passages show that the expression “sons of God” cannot be elucidated by philological means, but must be interpreted by theology alone. Moreover, even when it is applied to the angels, it is questionable whether it is to be understood in a physical or ethical sense. The notion that “it is employed in a physical sense as nomen naturae , instead of angels as nomen officii , and presupposes generation of a physical kind,” we must reject as an unscriptural and gnostic error. According to the scriptural view, the heavenly spirits are creatures of God, and not begotten from the divine essence. Moreover, all the other terms applied to the angels are ethical in their character. But if the title “sons of God” cannot involve the notion of physical generation, it cannot be restricted to celestial spirits, but is applicable to all beings which bear the image of God, or by virtue of their likeness to God participate in the glory, power, and blessedness of the divine life, – to men therefore as well as angels, since God has caused man to “want but little of Elohim,” or to stand but a little behind Elohim (Psa 8:5), so that even magistrates are designated “ Elohim, and sons of the Most High” (Psa 82:6). When Delitzsch objects to the application of the expression “sons of Elohim ” to pious men, because, “although the idea of a child of God may indeed have pointed, even in the O.T., beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1) towards a wider ethical signification (Psa 73:15; Pro 14:26), yet this extension and expansion were not so completed, that in historical prose the terms ‘sons of God’ (for which ‘sons of Jehovah ‘ should have been used to prevent mistake), and ‘sons (or daughters) of men,’ could be used to distinguish the children of God and the children of the world,” – this argument rests upon the erroneous supposition, that the expression “sons of God” was introduced by Jehovah for the first time when He selected Israel to be the covenant nation. So much is true, indeed, that before the adoption of Israel as the first-born son of Jehovah (Exo 4:22), it would have been out of place to speak of sons of Jehovah; but the notion is false, or at least incapable of proof, that there were not children of God in the olden time, long before Abraham’s call, and that, if there were, they could not have been called “sons of Elohim.” The idea was not first introduced in connection with the theocracy, and extended thence to a more universal signification. It had its roots in the divine image, and therefore was general in its application from the very first; and it was not till God in the character of Jehovah chose Abraham and his seed to be the vehicles of salvation, and left the heathen nations to go their own way, that the expression received the specifically theocratic signification of “son of Jehovah,” to be again liberated and expanded into the more comprehensive idea of (i.e., Elohim, not = Jehovah), at the coming of Christ, the Saviour of all nations. If in the olden time there were pious men who, like Enoch and Noah, walked with Elohim, or who, even if they did not stand in this close priestly relation to God, made the divine image a reality through their piety and fear of God, then there were sons (children) of God, for whom the only correct appellation was “sons of Elohim,” since sonship to Jehovah was introduced with the call of Israel, so that it could only have been proleptically that the children of God in the old world could be called “sons of Jehovah.” But if it be still argued, that in mere prose the term “sons of God” could not have been applied to children of God, or pious men, this would be equally applicable to “sons of Jehovah.” On the other hand, there is this objection to our applying it to angels, that the pious, who walked with God and called upon the name of the Lord, had been mentioned just before, whereas no allusion had been made to angels, not even to their creation.
Again, the antithesis “sons of God” and “daughters of men” does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in Gen 6:1 denotes man as a genus, i.e., the whole human race, it must do the same in Gen 6:2, where the expression “daughters of men” is determined by the antithesis “sons of God.” And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus , mentioned in Gen 6:1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of , through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. “From the expression ‘daughters of men,” as Dettinger observes, “it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jer 32:20, where it is said that God had done miracles ‘in Israel, and among men,’ or from Isa 43:4, where God says He will give men for the Israelites, or from Jdg 16:7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, for from Psa 73:5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named.” Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense. We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. In Jdg 19:30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e., of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (Jdg 20:1-2) it is related that “ all the children of Israel,” “all the tribes of Israel,” assembled together (to make war, as we learn from Jdg 20:3., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, Judges 20 and 21, the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression “tribes of Israel” really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.
The question whether the “sons of Elohim ” were celestial or terrestrial sons of God (angels or pious men of the family of Seth) can only be determined from the context, and from the substance of the passage itself, that is to say, from what is related respecting the conduct of the sons of God and its results. That the connection does not favour the idea of their being angels, is acknowledged even by those who adopt this view. “It cannot be denied,” says Delitzsch, “that the connection of Gen 6:1-8 with Gen 4 necessitates the assumption, that such intermarriages (of the Sethite and Cainite families) did take place about the time of the flood (cf. Mat 24:38; Luk 17:27); and the prohibition of mixed marriages under the law (Exo 34:16; cf. Gen 27:46; Gen 28:1.) also favours the same idea.” But this “assumption” is placed beyond all doubt, by what is here related of the sons of God. In Gen 6:2 it is stated that “the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose,” i.e., of any with whose beauty they were charmed; and these wives bare children to them (Gen 6:4). Now (to take a wife) is a standing expression throughout the whole of the Old Testament for the marriage relation established by God at the creation, and is never applied to , or the simple act of physical connection. This is quite sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels. For Christ Himself distinctly states that the angels cannot marry (Mat 22:30; Mar 12:25; cf. Luk 20:34.). And when Kurtz endeavours to weaken the force of these words of Christ, by arguing that they do not prove that it is impossible for angels so to fall from their original holiness as to sink into an unnatural state; this phrase has no meaning, unless by conclusive analogies, or the clear testimony of Scripture,
(Note: We cannot admit that there is any force in Hoffmann’s argument in his Schriftbeweis 1, p. 426, that “the begetting of children on the part of angels is not more irreconcilable with a nature that is not organized, like that of man, on the basis of sexual distinctions, than partaking of food is with a nature that is altogether spiritual; and yet food was eaten by the angels who visited Abraham.” For, in the first place, the eating in this case was a miracle wrought through the condescending grace of the omnipotent God, and furnishes no standard for judging what angels can do by their own power in rebellion against God. And in the second place, there is a considerable difference between the act of eating on the part of the angels of God who appeared in human shape, and the taking of wives and begetting of children on the part of sinning angels. We are quite unable also to accept as historical testimony, the myths of the heathen respecting demigods, sons of gods, and the begetting of children on the part of their gods, or the fables of the book of Enoch (ch. 6ff.) about the 200 angels, with their leaders, who lusted after the beautiful and delicate daughters of men, and who came down from heaven and took to themselves wives, with whom they begat giants of 3000 (or according to one MS 300) cubits in height.
Nor do 2Pe 2:4 and Jud 1:6 furnish any evidence of angel marriages. Peter is merely speaking of sinning angels in general ( ) whom God did not spare, and not of any particular sin on the part of a small number of angels; and Jude describes these angels as , those who kept not their princedom, their position as rulers, but left their own habitation. There is nothing here about marriages with the daughters of men or the begetting of children, even if we refer the word in the clause in Jud 1:7 to the angels mentioned in Jud 1:6; for , the commission of fornication, would be altogether different from marriage, that is to say, from a conjugal bond that was permanent even though unnatural. But it is neither certain nor probable that this is the connection of . Huther, the latest commentator upon this Epistle, who gives the preference to this explanation of , and therefore cannot be accused of being biassed by doctrinal prejudices, says distinctly in the 2nd Ed. of his commentary, “ may be grammatically construed as referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, or per synesin to the inhabitants of these cities; but in that case the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah would only be mentioned indirectly.” There is nothing in the rules of syntax, therefore, to prevent our connecting the word with Sodom and Gomorrah; and it is not a fact, that “ grammaticae et logicae praecepta compel us to refer this word to the angels,” as G. v. Zeschwitz says. But the very same reason which Huther assigns for not connecting it with Sodom and Gomorrah, may be also assigned for not connecting it with the angels, namely, that in that case the sin of the angels would only be mentioned indirectly. We regard Philippi’s explanation (in his Glaubenslehre iii. p. 303) as a possible one, viz., that the word refers back to the mentioned in Jud 1:4, and as by no means set aside by De Wette’s objection, that the thought of Jud 1:8 would be anticipated in that case; for this objection is fully met by the circumstance, that not only does the word , which is repeated five times from Jud 1:8 onwards, refer back to these men, but even the word in Jud 1:14 also. On the other hand, the reference of to the angels is altogether precluded by the clause , which follows the word . For fornication on the part of the angels could only consist in their going after flesh, or, as Hoffmann expresses it, “having to do with flesh, for which they were not created,” but not in their going after other, or foreign flesh. There would be no sense in the word unless those who were were themselves possessed of ; so that this is the only alternative, either we must attribute to the angels a or fleshly body, or the idea of referring to the angels must be given up. When Kurtz replies to this by saying that “to angels human bodies are quite as much a , i.e., a means of sensual gratification opposed to their nature and calling, as man can be to human man,” he hides the difficulty, but does not remove it, by the ambiguous expression “opposed to their nature and calling.” The must necessarily presuppose an .
But it is thought by some, that even if in Jud 1:7 do not refer to the angels in Jud 1:6, the words of Jude agree so thoroughly with the tradition of the book of Enoch respecting the fall of the angels, that we must admit the allusion to the Enoch legend, and so indirectly to Gen 6, since Jude could not have expressed himself more clearly to persons who possessed the book of Enoch, or were acquainted with the tradition it contained. Now this conclusion would certainly be irresistible, if the only sin of the angels mentioned in the book of Enoch, as that for which they were kept in chains of darkness still the judgment-day, had been their intercourse with human wives. For the fact that Jude was acquainted with the legend of Enoch, and took for granted that the readers of his Epistle were so too, is evident from his introducing a prediction of Enoch in Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15, which is to be found in ch. i. 9 of Dillmann’s edition of the book of Enoch. But it is admitted by all critical writers upon this book, that in the book of Enoch which has been edited by Dillmann, and is only to be found in an Ethiopic version, there are contradictory legends concerning the fall and judgment of the angels; that the book itself is composed of earlier and later materials; and that those very sections (ch. 6-16:106, etc.) in which the legend of the angel marriages is given without ambiguity, belong to the so-called book of Noah, i.e., to a later portion of the Enoch legend, which is opposed in many passages to the earlier legend. The fall of the angels is certainly often referred to in the earlier portions of the work; but among all the passages adduced by Dillmann in proof of this, there is only one (19:1) which mentions the angels who had taken wives. In the others, the only thing mentioned as the sin of the angels or of the hosts of Azazel, is the fact that they were subject to Satan, and seduced those who dwelt on the earth (54:3-6), or that they came down from heaven to earth, and revealed to the children of men what was hidden from them, and then led them astray to the commission of sin (64:2). There is nothing at all here about their taking wives. Moreover, in the earlier portions of the book, besides the fall of the angels, there is frequent reference made to a fall, i.e., an act of sin, on the part of the stars of heaven and the army of heaven, which transgressed the commandment of God before they rose, by not appearing at their appointed time (vid., 18:14-15; 21:3; 90:21, 24, etc.); and their punishment and place of punishment are described, in just the same manner as in the case of the wicked angels, as a prison, a lofty and horrible place in which the seven stars of heaven lie bound like great mountains and flaming with fire (21:2-3), as an abyss, narrow and deep, dreadful and dark, in which the star which fell first from heaven is lying, bound hand and foot (88:1, cf. 90:24). From these passages it is quite evident, that the legend concerning the fall of the angels and stars sprang out of Isa 24:21-22 (“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall visit the host of the height [ , the host of heaven, by which stars and angels are to be understood on high i.e., the spiritual powers of the heavens] and the kings of the earth upon the earth, and they shall be gathered together, bound in the dungeon, and shut up in prison, and after many days they shall be punished”), along with Isa 14:12 (“How art thou fallen from heaven, thou beautiful morning star!”), and that the account of the sons of God in Gen 6, as interpreted by those who refer it to the angels, was afterwards combined and amalgamated with it.
Now if these different legends, describing the judgment upon the stars that fell from heaven, and the angels that followed Satan in seducing man, in just the same manner as the judgment upon the angels who begot giants from women, were in circulation at the time when the Epistle of Jude was written; we must not interpret the sin of the angels, referred to by Peter and Jude, in a one-sided manner, and arbitrarily connect it with only such passages of the book of Enoch as speak of angel marriages, to the entire disregard of all the other passages, which mention totally different sins as committed by the angels, that are punished with bands of darkness; but we must interpret it from what Jude himself has said concerning this sin, as Peter gives no further explanation of what he means by . Now the only sins that Jude mentions are and . The two are closely connected. Through not keeping the (i.e., the position as rulers in heaven) which belonged to them, and was assigned them at their creation, the angels left “their own habitation” ( ); just as man, when he broke the commandment of God and failed to keep his position as ruler on earth, also lost “his own habitation” ( ), that is to say, not paradise alone, but the holy body of innocence also, so that he needed a covering for his nakedness, and will continue to need it, until we are “clothed upon with our hose which is from heaven” ( ). In this description of the angels’ sin, there is not the slightest allusion to their leaving heaven to woo the beautiful daughters of men. The words may be very well interpreted, as they were by the earlier Christian theologians, as relating to the fall of Satan and his angels, to whom all that is said concerning their punishment fully applies. If Jude had had the of the angels, mentioned in the Enoch legends, in his mind, he would have stated this distinctly, just as he does in v. 9 in the case of the legend concerning Michael and the devil, and in v. 11 in that of Enoch’s prophecy. There was all the more reason for his doing this, because not only to contradictory accounts of the sin of the angels occur in the Enoch legends, but a comparison of the parallels cited from the book of Enoch proves that he deviated from the Enoch legend in points of no little importance. Thus, for example, according to Enoch 54:3, “ iron chains of immense weight” are prepared for the hosts of Azazel, to put them into the lowest hell, and cast them on that great day into the furnace with flaming fire. Now Jude and Peter say nothing about iron chains, and merely mention “everlasting chains under darkness” and “chains of darkness.” Again, according to Enoch 10:12, the angel sinners are “bound fast under the earth for seventy generations, till the day of judgment and their completion, till the last judgment shall be held for all eternity.” Peter and Jude make no allusion to this point of time, and the supporters of the angel marriages, therefore, have thought well to leave it out when quoting this parallel to Jud 1:6. Under these circumstances, the silence of the apostles as to either marriages or fornication on the part of the sinful angels, is a sure sign that they gave no credence to these fables of a Jewish gnosticizing tradition.)
it can be proved that the angels either possess by nature a material corporeality adequate to the contraction of a human marriage, or that by rebellion against their Creator they can acquire it, or that there are some creatures in heaven and on earth which, through sinful degeneracy, or by sinking into an unnatural state, can become possessed of the power, which they have not by nature, of generating and propagating their species. As man could indeed destroy by sin the nature which he had received from his Creator, but could not by his own power restore it when destroyed, to say nothing of implanting an organ or a power that was wanting before; so we cannot believe that angels, through apostasy from God, could acquire sexual power of which they had previously been destitute.
Gen 6:3 The sentence of God upon the “sons of God” is also appropriate to men only. “ Jehovah said: My spirit shall not rule in men for ever; in their wandering they are flesh.” “The verb = signifies to rule (hence the ruler), and to judge, as the consequence of ruling. is the divine spirit of life bestowed upon man, the principle of physical and ethical, natural and spiritual life. This His spirit God will withdraw from man, and thereby put an end to their life and conduct. is regarded by many as a particle, compounded of , a contraction of , and (also), used in the sense of quoniam, because, ( = , as or = Jdg 5:7; Jdg 6:17; Son 1:7). But the objection to this explanation is, that the , “because he also is flesh,” introduces an incongruous emphasis into the clause. We therefore prefer to regard as the inf. of = with the suffix: “ in their erring (that of men) he (man as a genus) is flesh; ” an explanation to which, to our mind, the extremely harsh change of number ( they, he), is no objection, since many examples might be adduced of a similar change (vid., Hupfeld on Psa 5:10). Men, says God, have proved themselves by their erring and straying to be flesh, i.e., given up to the flesh, and incapable of being ruled by the Spirit of God and led back to the divine goal of their life. is used already in its ethical signification, like in the New Testament, denoting not merely the natural corporeality of man, but his materiality as rendered ungodly by sin. “ Therefore his days shall be 120 years: ” this means, not that human life should in future never attain a greater age than 120 years, but that a respite of 120 years should still be granted to the human race. This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be published by him as “preacher of righteousness” (2Pe 2:5) to the degenerate race. The reason why men had gone so far astray, that God determined to withdraw His spirit and give them up to destruction, was that the sons of God had taken wives of such of the daughters of men as they chose. Can this mean, because angels had formed marriages with the daughters of men? Even granting that such marriages, as being unnatural connections, would have led to the complete corruption of human nature; the men would in that case have been the tempted, and the real authors of the corruption would have been the angels. Why then should judgment fall upon the tempted alone? The judgments of God in the world are not executed with such partiality as this. And the supposition that nothing is said about the punishment of the angels, because the narrative has to do with the history of man, and the spiritual world is intentionally veiled as much as possible, does not meet the difficulty. If the sons of God were angels, the narrative is concerned not only with men, but with angels also; and it is not the custom of the Scriptures merely to relate the judgments which fall upon the tempted, and say nothing at all about the tempters. For the contrary, see Gen 3:14. If the “sons of God” were not men, so as to be included in the term , the punishment would need to be specially pointed out in their case, and no deep revelations of the spiritual world would be required, since these celestial tempters would be living with men upon the earth, when they had taken wives from among their daughters. The judgments of God are not only free from all unrighteousness, but avoid every kind of partiality.
Gen 6:4 “ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: these are the heroes ( ) who from the olden time ( , as in Psa 25:6; 1Sa 27:8) are the men of name ” (i.e., noted, renowned or notorious men). , from to fall upon (Job 1:15; Jos 11:7), signifies the invaders ( Aq., Sym.). Luther gives the correct meaning, “tyrants:” they were called Nephilim because they fell upon the people and oppressed them.
(Note: The notion that the Nephilim were giants, to which the Sept. rendering has given rise, was rejected even by Luther as fabulous. He bases his view upon Jos 11:7: “ Nephilim non dictos a magnitudine corporum, sicut Rabbini putant, sed a tyrannide et oppressione quod vi grassati sint, nulla habita ratione legum aut honestatis, sed simpliciter indulgentes suis voluptatibus et cupiditatibus .” The opinion that giants are intended derives no support from Num 13:32-33. When the spies describe the land of Canaan as “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof,” and then add (Num 13:33), “and there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak among ( lit., from, out of, in a partitive sense) the Nephilim,” by the side of whom they were as grasshoppers; the term Nephilim cannot signify giants, since the spies not only mention them especially along with the inhabitants of the land, who are described as people of great stature, but single out only a portion of the Nephilim as “sons of Anak” ), i.e., long-necked people or giants. The explanation “fallen from heaven” needs no refutation; inasmuch as the main element, “from heaven,” is a purely arbitrary addition.)
The meaning of the verse is a subject of dispute. To an unprejudiced mind, the words, as they stand, represent the Nephilim, who were on the earth in those days, as existing before the sons of God began to marry the daughters of men, and clearly distinguish them from the fruits of these marriages. can no more be rendered “they became, or arose,” in this connection, than in Gen 1:2. would have been the proper word. The expression “in those days” refers most naturally to the time when God pronounced the sentence upon the degenerate race; but it is so general and comprehensive a term, that it must not be confined exclusively to that time, not merely because the divine sentence was first pronounced after these marriages were contracted, and the marriages, if they did not produce the corruption, raised it to that fulness of iniquity which was ripe for the judgment, but still more because the words “after that” represent the marriages which drew down the judgment as an event that followed the appearance of the Nephilim. “ The same were mighty men: ” this might point back to the Nephilim; but it is a more natural supposition, that it refers to the children born to the sons of God. “These,” i.e., the sons sprung from those marriages, “are the heroes, those renowned heroes of old.”
Now if, according to the simple meaning of the passage, the Nephilim were in existence at the very time when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, the appearance of the Nephilim cannot afford the slightest evidence that the “sons of God” were angels, by whom a family of monsters were begotten, whether demigods, daemons, or angel-men.
(Note: How thoroughly irreconcilable the contents of this verse are with the angel-hypothesis is evident from the strenuous efforts of its supporters to bring them into harmony with it. Thus, in Reuter’s Repert., p. 7, Del. observes that the verse cannot be rendered in any but the following manner: “The giants were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, these they bare to them, or rather, and these bare to them;” but, for all that, he gives this as the meaning of the words, “At the time of the divine determination to inflict punishment the giants arose, and also afterwards, when this unnatural connection between super-terrestrial and human beings continued, there arose such giants;” not only substituting “arose” for “were,” but changing “when they connected themselves with them” into “when this connection continued.” Nevertheless he is obliged to confess that “it is strange that this unnatural connection, which I also suppose to be the intermediate cause of the origin of the giants, should not be mentioned in the first clause of Gen 6:4.” This is an admission that the text says nothing about the origin of the giants being traceable to the marriages of the sons of God, but that the commentators have been obliged to insert it in the text to save their angel marriages. Kurtz has tried three different explanations of this verse but they are all opposed to the rules of the language.) (1) In the History of the Old Covenant he gives this rendering: “Nephilim were on earth in these days, and that even after the sons of God had formed connections with the daughters of men;” in which he not only gives to the unsupportable meaning, “even, just,” but takes the imperfect in the sense of the perfect . (2) In his Ehen der Shne Gottes (p. 80) he gives the choice of this and the following rendering: “The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and also after this had happened, that the sons of God came to the daughters of men and begat children,” were the ungrammatical rendering of the imperfect as the perfect is artfully concealed by the interpolation of “after this had happened.” (3) In “ die Shne Gottes,” p. 85: “In these days and also afterwards, when the sons of God came (continued to come) to the daughters of men, they bare to them (sc., Nephilim),” where , they came, is arbitrarily altered into , they continued to come. But when he observes in defence of this quid pro quo , that “the imperfect denotes here, as Hengstenberg has correctly affirmed, and as so often is the case, an action frequently repeated in past times,” this remark only shows that he has neither understood the nature of the usage to which H. refers, nor what Ewald has said (136) concerning the force and use of the imperfect.)
Gen 6:5-8 Now when the wickedness of man became great, and “ every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil the whole day,” i.e., continually and altogether evil, it repented God that He had made man, and He determined to destroy them. This determination and the motive assigned are also irreconcilable with the angel-theory. “Had the godless race, which God destroyed by the flood, sprung either entirely or in part from the marriage of angels to the daughters of men, it would no longer have been the race first created by God in Adam, but a grotesque product of the Adamitic factor created by God, and an entirely foreign and angelic factor” ( Phil.).
(Note: When, on the other hand, the supporters of the angel marriages maintain that it is only on this interpretation that the necessity for the flood, i.e., for the complete destruction of the whole human race with the exception of righteous Noah, can be understood, not only is there no scriptural foundation for this argument, but it is decidedly at variance with those statements of the Scriptures, which speak of the corruption of the men whom God had created, and not of a race that had arisen through an unnatural connection of angels and men and forced their way into God’s creation. If it were really the case, that it would otherwise be impossible to understand where the necessity could lie, for all the rest of the human race to be destroyed and a new beginning to be made, whereas afterwards, when Abraham was chosen, the rest of the human race was not only spared, but preserved for subsequent participation in the blessings of salvation: we should only need to call Job to mind, who also could not comprehend the necessity for the fearful sufferings which overwhelmed him, and was unable to discover the justice of God, but who was afterwards taught a better lesson by God Himself, and reproved for his rash conclusions, as a sufficient proof of the deceptive and futile character of all such human reasoning.) But this is not the true state of the case. The Scriptures expressly affirm, that after the flood the moral corruption of man was the same as before the flood; for they describe it in Gen 8:21 in the very same words as in Gen 6:5: and the reason they assign for the same judgment not being repeated, is simply the promise that God would no more smite and destroy all living, as He had done before-an evident proof that God expected no change in human nature, and out of pure mercy and long-suffering would never send a second flood. “Now, if the race destroyed had been one that sprang from angel-fathers, it is difficult to understand why no improvement was to be looked for after the flood; for the repetition of any such unnatural angel-tragedy was certainly not probable, and still less inevitable” ( Philippi).)
The force of , “it repented the Lord,” may be gathered from the explanatory , “it grieved Him at His heart.” This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in His nature of His purposes. In this sense God never repents of anything (1Sa 15:29), “ quia nihil illi inopinatum vel non praevisum accidit ” ( Calvin). The repentance of God is an anthropomorphic expression for the pain of the divine love at the sin of man, and signifies that “God is hurt no less by the atrocious sins of men than if they pierced His heart with mortal anguish” ( Calvin). The destruction of all, “from man unto beast,” etc., is to be explained on the ground of the sovereignty of man upon the earth, the irrational creatures being created for him, and therefore involved in his fall. This destruction, however, was not to bring the human race to an end. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath, pledging the preservation and restoration of humanity.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Depravity of the World. | B. C. 2469. |
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
For the glory of God’s justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honour of God’s government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:– 1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing (ch. i. 28), and yet man’s corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. Prov. xxix. 16, When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring (Acts vi. 1), and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, Isa. ix. 3. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families. 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor. vi. 14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu 7:3; Deu 7:4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy (1 Kings xi. 1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezr 9:1; Ezr 9:2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
GENESIS – CHAPTER SIX
Verses 1-4:
“It came to pass,” literally, “it was.” This denotes some earlier era in the pre-flood world, and is not an immediate sequence following chapter 5. The period covered by these verses possibly had its beginning around the time of Enoch, contemporary with Lamech the Cainite, see Ge 5:19-24. It was in this era that violence and sensuality began to increase at a rapid rate.
There are two opinions among Bible interpreters regarding the identity of the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” One interpretation is that the “sons of God” were angels. This view was held by Philo, Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, Luther, Gesenius, Ewald, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. This portion cites the following Scriptures which identify angels as “sons of God:” Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; along with Jude 6, 7. This interpretation is inconsistent with the basic, universal law that “like produces like.” Nowhere in the realm of nature is there an inter-breeding between species. Although angels at times appeared to men in human form (Ge 18; Jos 5:12-15; Jg 6:11-22), there is no hint that this changed their essential nature to that of a human being. Jesus confirmed that the essential difference between humans and angels renders marriage relations impossible by the angels, Mt 22:30; Lu 20:35, 36.
The other interpretation is that the “sons of God” are the descendants of godly Seth. Among the ancient writers who held this belief were Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Jerome, Keil, Calvin, Lange, and others. Other Scriptures which have the phrase “sons of God” clearly refer to humans and not to angels, De 14:1; Lu 3:38; Ga 3:16. Historically, Eve recognized Seth as a son from God, Ge 4:25. It was during the lifetime of Seth that his descendants began to call themselves by the Name of Jehovah, Ge 4:26.
“Daughters of men” refers not to the Cainites restrictedly, but to men generally, including at times perhaps to those of the lineage of Seth as well as of Adam’s other descendants. The key expression is not “daughters of men,” but “they were fair,” tob, referring to their outward appearance. Physical attraction became the main factor in the marriage relationship among the “sons of God,” just as it was the Cainite line of godless humanity. Jesus confirms this: “In the days that were before the flood they were. . .marrying and giving in marriage” (Mt 24:38). The sin was not in the marriage relationship per se but in the perversion of it, degrading it to the beast level of sensuality and fleshly lust.
Emphasis is on “of all,” denoting that the Sethites did not restrict their marriage relationship to the “fair” daughters of their own race, but chose wives indiscriminately from the Cainites the estranged lineage of Adam and others, with no regard to spiritual character.
At some point in the pre-flood history, Jehovah determined that He would not indefinitely tolerate the sensuality and violence which came to characterized the human race, including many of the Sethites. Verse 3 implies that from this point, it was 120 years to the terrible judgment Jehovah would pour out upon sinful humanity.
“Giants,” nephilim, from naphal meaning “to fall.” This term implies that the “giants” were products of the fall of the “sons of God” into the sin of moral impurity. Nephilim occurs only three times on the Hebrew text, the other occurrences both being in Nu 13:33 where they refer to the inhabitants of Canaan, Cainites who terrorized Israel’s spies. The word does not refer exclusively to one who is huge in stature. It includes one who is violent, lawless, or who may be deformed in appearance. These violent, strange appearing men occupied various regions of the earth in the days when the sensual lifestyle prevailed in the pre-flood world.
In addition to the nephilim who filled the earth with violence and moral impurity, there were also “mighty men” “ha-gibborim born to the unholy marriages. Gibborim, literally, “heroes, strong and impetuous ones.” The term occurs some 157 times in the Hebrew text and refers to both good and evil men. The context governs the meaning. These men were men of reputation in the pre-flood world, the nobility who boasted of their lawlessness.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply. Moses, having enumerated in order, ten patriarchs, with whom the worship of God remained pure, now relates, that their families also were corrupted. But this narration must be traced to an earlier period than the five hundredth year of Noah. For, in order to make a transition to the history of the deluge, he prefaces it by declaring the whole world to have been so corrupt, that scarcely anything was left to God, out of the widely spread defection. That this may be the more apparent, the principle is to be kept in memory, that the world was then as if divided into two parts; because the family of Seth cherished the pure and lawful worship of Good, from which the rest had fallen. Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate.
That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. The opinion also of the Chaldean paraphrase is frigid; namely, that promiscuous marriages between the sons of nobles, and the daughters of plebeians, is condemned. Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or of different origin; but because they were the sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honor is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families. For when Scripture speaks of the sons of God, sometimes it has respect to eternal election, which extends only to the lawful heirs; sometimes to external vocations according to which many wolves are within the fold; and thought in fact, they are strangers, yet they obtain the name of sons, until the Lord shall disown them. Yea, even by giving them a title so honorable, Moses reproves their ingratitude, because, leaving their heavenly Father, they prostituted themselves as deserters.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE DAWN OF HISTORY
Gen 1:1 to Gen 11:9.
IN beginning this Bible of the Expositor and Evangelist, I am keenly sensible of the seriousness of my task. The book to be treated is the Book of Books, the one and only volume that has both survived and increasingly conquered the centuries, and that now, in a hoary old age, shows no sign of weakness, holds no hint of decay or even decrepitude; in fact, the Book is more robust at this moment than at any time since it came to completion, and it gives promise of dominating the future in a measure far surpassing its influence upon the past.
The method of studying the Bible, to be illustrated in these pages, is, we are convinced, a sane and safe one, if not the most efficient one. Years since, certain statements from the pen of Dr. James M. Gray, superintendent of the Moody Bible Institute, fell under our eyes, and those statements have profoundly influenced our methods of study.
Five simple rules he suggested for mastering the English Bible:
First, Read the Book.
Second: Read it consecutively.
Third: Read it repeatedly.
Fourth: Read it independently.
Fifth: Read it prayerfully.
Applying these suggestions to each volume in turn, if ones life be long continued, he may not hope to master his English Bible, but he will certainly discover its riches increasingly, and possess himself more and more of its marvelous treasures,
It was on the first Sunday of July, 1922, that I placed before myself and my people the program of study that produced these volumes. To be sure, much of the work had been done back of that date, but the determination to utilize it in this exact manner was fully adopted there and then. It was and is my thought that the greatest single weakness of the present-day pulpit exists in the circumstance that we have departed from the custom of our best fathers in the ministry, namely, Scriptural exposition. If, therefore, these volumes shall lead a large number of my brethren in the ministry, particularly the young men among them, to become expository preachers, and yet to combine exposition with evangelism, my reward will be my eternal riches.
Stimulated by that high hope, I turn your attention to the study itself, and begin where the Book begins and where all true students should begin, with Gen 1:1, but in thought, an eternity beyond the hour of its phrasing, for by the opening sentence we are pushed back to God. In the beginning
GOD.
That is the starting point of all true studies. The scientist is compelled to start there, or else he never understands where he is, nor yet with what he deals. God, the One of infinite wisdom, infinite power, infinite justice and of infinite goodnessIn the beginning God.
Having heard that name and having understood the One to whom it is applied, we are prepared for what follows,created the heavens and the earth marvelous first verse of the Bible!
All in this first chapter is wrapped up in that first sentence; that is the explanation of all things; what follows is simply the setting forth of details.
I agree with Joseph Parker that the explanation is simple. No attempt at learned analysis; that the explanation is sublime because it sweeps in all of time, all of material suggestions, all of power and illustrates all of wisdomthe heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork; day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge, and it is a sufficient explanation, the only one that satisfies the mind of man.
Infidel evolutionists cannot account for the beginnings. The geologist who does not believe, digs down to a point where he says, Who started all of this? and waits in sadness while the dumb rocks are silent; but for the Christian student no such mystery makes his work an enigma.
Everywhere he sees the touch of God; in the plants, the animals, the birds and in man,God. Where the unbeliever wonders and questions to get no reply, the believer admires, saying, This is my Fathers hand, the work of my Fathers word. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear (Heb 11:3), and he joins with the Psalmist, Let all nations praise the name of the Lord for He commanded and they were created (Psa 108:5).
Competent scholars have called attention to the careful use of words in the Bible, a use so painstaking and perfect as to give a scientific demonstration of the verbal inspiration theory. When it is said that God created the heavens and the earth, the Hebrew verb bara is employed, and it means to create something from nothing, so that God gave the death blow to the evolution theory some thousands of years before that unprovable hypothesis was born! The same word bara is also used in the 21st verse (Gen 1:21) concerning the creation of mammals, and three times in the 27th verse (Gen 1:27) concerning the creation of man, while a kindred word asah (neither of which convey any such thought as growth or evolution) is employed concerning His making man in His own image in Gen 1:26.
God, then, is not a mechanic; He is a Creator. He did not come upon the scenes of the universe to fashion what existed independent and apart from Him, but to create and complete according to His own pleasure.
In later chapters we shall show how these creative acts are confirmed by science itself, and argue the utter folly of trying to find incompatibility between Gods Work and Gods Word.
So for the present we may pass from God the Creator, as revealed in the first chapter, to
ADAM THE MAN
of the second chapter. An infinite decline, somebody says. But let us be reminded that it is not so great as appears at this present hour. The only man God ever made outright was not what you and I see now. The man He made was in His own image, after His own likeness, only as far below
Him as the finite is below the infinite; as the best creation is below the best Creator.
The man God made was good. The man God made was great. The man God made was wise. The man God made was holy. The men we see now are not His children, but the children of the fallen Adam instead, for Eve, fallen, brought forth after her kind; and what a fall was that!
When man disobeyed, he brought on himself and all succeeding ages sin, and its wretched results. There are those who blame God for the fall of man and say, He had no business to make him so he could fall. But everything that is upright can fall, and the difference between a man who could not fall and a man who could fall is simply the difference between a machine and a sentient, intelligent, upright, capable being.
There was but a single point at which this man could oppose Providence. Situated and environed as Adam was, the great social sins that have crushed the race could make no appeal to him. It is commonly conceded that the Decalogue sweeps the gamut of social, ethical and even religious conduct. Adam had no occasion to bow down before another God, for Jehovah, his Creator, was his counsellor and friend, and of other gods he knew nothing nor had he need of such. There was no provocation that could tempt him to take the name of that God in vain. There was no Sabbath day, for all days were holy, and the condemnation to labor was not yet passed. There was no father and mother to be honored. To have committed murder was unthinkable; first because there was no provocation, and second, such an act would have left him in the world alone, his heart craving, unsatisfied, and his very kind to perish. The seventh commandment meant nothing to the man whose wife was in the image of God, and the only woman known. Theft was impossible, since all things belonged to him. False witness and covetousness against a neighborhe had no neighbor.
But when God selected for Himself a single tree, leaving the rest of the earth to Adam, and he proved himself unwilling to let the least of earthly possessions be wholly the Lords, he gave an illustration to the unborn millenniums that man, in his almost infinite greatness, would not abide content that God Himself should be over and above him; and from that moment until this, that very thing has been the crux of every contention between the Divine and the human. If we may believe the Prophets, it was that very temptation that caused Lucifers fall and gave us the devil and hell!
All talk of shallow minds that God condemned the race because one man happened to bite into an apple, is utterly wide of the mark. Condemnation rests upon the race because every man born of the flesh has revealed the same spirit of rebellion shown by our first parentswe will not have God rule over us even to the extent of keeping anything from us. The wealth of His gifts should shame and restrain against His few prohibitions.
But, alas for mans guilt and godlessness! Equally wide of the mark is that other superficial reasoning that it is unjust of God to condemn me because some one of my forefathers misbehaved! Why charge God with injustice concerning something He has never done and will never do? Why not let
Him speak for Himself in such matters, and listen when he declares, The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him (Eze 18:20).
If, therefore, Adam with a body, mind and spirit unsullied, never having been weakened by an evil act or habit, did not stand, what hope for any man in his own merit. Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that we are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one. There is none that understandeth. There is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way. They are altogether become unprofitable (Rom 3:9-12).
You say that the temptation was a subtle one. I answer, Yes, that is Satans way to this hour. You say, The desire was for wisdom. I answer, Yes, that is still Satans appeal; you need to see and to know more than you do, hence you had better try this sin.
Over one of the most palatial but wicked doorways of all Paris there used to be an inscription, Come in; nothing to pay, and so far as mere entrance to that place was concerned, that was true. But those who entered found when they had come out that they had visited the place at the cost of character, not to speak of that meaner thing money.
In passing, we call your attention to the justice of Gods judgment upon this sin. Its heaviest sentence fell upon the serpent, Satans direct agent; that wisest of all beasts of the field. He was accursed above all cattle, and brought down from his upright, manly-appearing position to go upon his belly and to eat dust all his days, and to be hated and killed by the seed of the woman with whom he had had such influence.
The second sentence in weight fell upon the woman who listened to this deception and led the way in disobedience. The man did not escape. The associate in sin never does. His love for the principal may in some measure mitigate Gods judgment, but the justice of God would be called in question, and even His goodness, if He permitted any sin to be unpunished.
EVE, THE PRINCIPAL PERSON
in this third chapter must have been in her unfallen state Adams equal, mentally and morally. We have had great women, beautiful women, women worthy the admiration of the world, but I have an idea that the worlds greatest woman was not Cleopatra, the beautiful but selfish; nor Paula, that firmest of all friends; nor Heloise, the very embodiment of affection; nor Joan or Arc, heroism incarnate; nor Elizabeth, the wonderful queen; nor Madam De Stael of letters; nor Hannah Moore of education; but Eve, our first mother.
When I think on her and look at the frail, feeble, sickly, sinful sister of the streets, I feel like weeping over the fact that our first mother fell; and today among her daughters are those so far removed from Gods ideal.
THE FAMILY
of the fourth chapter had its beginning in sin, and it is a dreadfully dark picture that is here presented. Envy, murder and lust appear at once. Abel is murdered, Cain made a criminal, polygamy introduced and all social vices which curse the sons of God. The picture would incite despair, but for the circumstance that in the third chapter God had made a promise which put Grace instead of Law.
There was need, for unless the womans seed should bruise the serpents head, that serpents venom will not only strike the heel of every son, but send its poison coursing to his heart and head; without God, without hopedead indeed!
Truly, as one writer has said, We lose our life when we lose our innocence; we are dead when we are guilty; we are in hell when we are in shame.
Death does not take a long time to come upon us; it comes on the very day of our sin. In the day when thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Before that sentence there is no hope, except in these words spoken of the seed of woman against that old serpent, Satan; It shall bruise thy head the first prophecy of the wonderful gift of Gods Son.
Of
CAIN AND ABEL
we appreciate the contrast! The self-righteousness on the part of one; self-abasement on the part of the other. Cains saying, The fruit of mine own hands shall suffice for my justification before God; Abel saying, Without the shedding of blood there is no remission, and that spirit of Cain dominates the early society, as we have already seen; for while the population grew rapidly, sin kept pace, and even seemed swifter still. From self-righteousness they rushed to envy, to murder, and to lust.
The Pharisee may thank God that he is not as other men are, but history is likely to demonstrate the want of occasion for his boasting, for pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
The most dangerous man is the man who recognizes no dependence upon another than himself; and the man most likely to be an extortioner, to be unjust, the man most apt to be an adulterer, yea, even a murderer, is this same Cain who says, See the fruit of my hands. The youthful Chicago murderers thought their fine family connections and their university educations would save them from suspicion and condemnation! I tell you, it is the humble man who is justified in Gods sight!
The man who cries, God be merciful to me a sinnerrather than the man who wipes his lips and says, I am clean, and is offended when you talk to him of the necessity of purifying Blood in which to baptize his soulhe is the man who is justified in Gods sight.
THE FIFTH CHAPTER
covers a period of about 1,500 years, and contains but one great name, not introduced in the other chapters, and this is the name of Enoch. Note that his greatness consisted in the single fact that he walked with God.
Dr. Dixon said, He did not try to induce God to walk with him. He simply fell in with Gods ways and work.
Some one asked Abraham Lincoln to appoint a day of fasting and prayer that God might be on the side of the Northern Army. To this that noble President replied, Dont bother about what side God is on. He is on the right side. You simply get with Him.
Enoch was an every-day hero! Walking patiently, persistently, continuously is harder than flying. They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint. Like Enoch of old, they shall not see death, for God shall take them, and before their translation they shall have this testimony that they please God.
We have said that this fifth chapter covers 1,500 years. I call you to note the fact that it contains a multitude of names; names that even the best of Bible students do not, and cannot call. Nobody has ever committed them to memory; nobody cares to. They are not worth it. They were given to no noble deeds; they lived and died. The only wonder we have about them is that God let some of them live so long, unless it be that we also wonder how they managed to live so long and accomplish so little. Yet these nonentities have a part in Gods plan. They were bringing forth children; grandchildren came, and great grandchildren, and the children of great-grandchildren until Enoch was born, and by and by Noah; then the whole line was noble from Seth, Adams better of the living sons, down to these great names. It is worth while for a family to be continued for a thousand years, if, at the end of that time, one son can be born into the house who shall bring things to pass; one Enoch who shall walk with God; one Noah who shall save the race! There are people who are greatly distressed because their parents were neither lords, dukes nor even millionaires. They seem to think that the child who is to come to much must descend from a father of superior reputation at least. History testifies to the contrary, and shows us that the noblest are often born into unknown houses. The most gifted sons, the most wonderful daughters have been bred by parents of whom the great world never heard until these children, by their fame, called attention to their humble fathers.
The multiplied concessions that advocates of the evolution theory are obliged to make by facts they face at every turn, excite almost tender pity for them. Professor Conklin, in his volume The Direction of Human Evolution puts forth an endeavor in splendid defense of this hypothesis worthy of a better cause, and yet again and again he is compelled to say the things that disprove his main proposition. Consider these words. Think of the great men of unknown lineage, and the unknown men of great lineage; think of the close relationship of all persons of the same race; of the wide distribution of good and bad traits in the whole population; of incompetence and even feeble-mindedness in great families, and of genius and greatness in unknown families, and say whether natural inheritance supports the claims of aristocracy or of democracy.
When we remember that most of the great leaders of mankind came of humble parents; that many of the greatest geniuses had the most lowly origin; that Shakespeare was the son of a bankrupt butcher and an ignorant woman who could not write her name, that as a youth he is said to have been known more for poaching than for scholarship, and that his acquaintance with the London theatres began by his holding horses for their patrons; that Beethovens mother was a consumptive, the daughter of a cook, and his father a confirmed drunkard; that Schuberts father was a peasant by birth and his mother a domestic servant; that Faraday, perhaps the greatest scientific discoverer of any age, was born over a stable, his father a poor sick black-smither, his mother an ignorant drudge, and his only education obtained in selling newspapers on the streets of London and later in working as apprentice to a book-binder; that the great Pasteur was the son of a tanner; that Lincolns parents were accounted poor white trash and his early surroundings and education most unpromising; and so on through the long list of names in which democracy glories when we remember these we may well ask whether aristocracy can show a better record. The law of entail is aristocratic, but the law of Mendel is democratic.
Quaint old Thomas Fuller wrote many years ago in his Scripture Observations,
I find, Lord, the genealogy of my Saviour strangely checkered with four remarkable changes in four immediate generations:
1. Roboam begat Abia, that is a bad father and a bad son.
2. Abia begat Asa, that is a bad father a good son.
3. Asa begat Josaphat, that is a good father a good son.
4. Josaphat begat Joram, that is a good father a bad son.
I can see, Lord, from hence that my fathers piety cannot be entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son.
It is not so much a question as to your birth, or to the line in which you are, as to the nobleness of the family tree, as it is what sort of a branch you are; what sort of a branch you may become.
The Duke of Modena flung a taunt at a Cardinal in a controversy, reminding him that his father was only a swineherd of the Dukes father. The Cardinal calmly replied, If your father had been my fathers swineherd, you would have been a swineherd still.
In the race of life it does not make so much difference where we start as how we end.
I do not mean to despise the laws of heredity. They are somewhat fixed, wise and wonderful. The child of a good father has the better chance in this world, beyond doubt. But our plea is that no matter who the fathers are, we may so live that our offspring shall be named by all succeeding generations. I call attention to Enoch in illustration.
About
NOAH
four chapters or more enwrap themselves. Gods man has a large place in history. It is hard enough for Him to find one who is faithful, but when found He always has an important commission for him.
The most important commission ever given to any man was given to this man; namely, that of saving the race. Noah did his best, but when he saw that he was not succeeding with the outside world, he turned his hope to himself as the last resort; to his family as his possible associates. That is always the last resort. Man must save himself, or he can save no one else. The man who saves himself by letting God save him, stands a good chance of being accepted by his own family, and his faith will doubtless find its answer in their salvation as well. Even if it fail with the outside world, that world will be compelled to remember, when Gods judgment comes, that this commissioned one did what he could for them.
In Hebrews we read, By faith Noah moved with fear prepared an ark to the saving of his house. The fear of man bringeth a snare. The fear of God effects salvation. The fear of man makes a coward; the fear of God incites courage. The fear of man means defeat; the fear of God accomplishes success. Be careful whom you fear! I like the man who can tremble before the Father of all. I pity the man who trembles before the face of every earthly foe.
The story is told that two men were commissioned by Wellington to go on a dangerous errand. As they galloped along, one looked at the other, saying, You are scared. Yes, replied his comrade, I am, but I am still more afraid not to do what the commander said. The first turned his horse and galloped back to the Generals tent and said, Sir, you have sent me with a coward. When I looked at him last his face was livid with fear and his form trembled like a leaf. Well, said Wellington, you had better hurry back to him, or he will have the mission performed before you get there to aid. As the man started back he met his comrade, who said, You need not go. I have performed the mission already.
It was through Noah that the Lord gave to humanity a fresh start. God is always doing that. It is the meaning of every revolutionGod overrules it for a fresh start. That is the meaning of wars they may be Satanic in origin, but God steps in often and uses for a fresh start. That is the meaning of the wiping out of nationsa fresh start, and man is always doing what he did at the firstfalling again.
Noah was a righteous man; with his family he made up the whole company of those who had been loyal to God, and one might vainly imagine that from such a family only deeds of honor, of valor, acts of righteousness would be known to earth. Alas for our hope in the best of men!
He has scarcely set foot upon dry ground when we read, (Gen 9:20-21), Noah began to be a husbandman and he planted a vineyard, and he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he was uncovered in his tent, and down the race went again! Man has fallen, and his nakedness is uncovered before God, and the shame of it is seen by his own blood and bone. Truly, by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight, because our deeds are not worthy of it. Faith becomes the only foundation of righteousness. That is what the eleventh chapter of Hebrews was written to teach us. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he, and when once a man has fixed his faith in the living God, and keeps it there, the God in whom he trusts keeps him, and that is his only hope. For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9).
NIMROD
the principal personage in the tenth chapter has his offices given. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord, and he was a king. The beginning of his kingdom by Babel and Erich, and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Our attention has been called to the fact that before this chapter, nations are unknown, but now established government appears. Chapter 9:6 is the basis of it, and in Rom 13:2-4 we see that God set the seal of His approval upon it. Nimrod comes forth as the first autocrat and conqueror. One can almost hear the marches to and fro of the people in this chapter; cities are going up and civilization doubtless thought it was making advance, but how far it advances we shall speedily see.
The things in its favor were dexterously employed. Some wise men suddenly remembered that they all had one speech and said, We ought to make the most of it. True, as Joseph Parker says, Wise men are always getting up schemes that God has to bring to naught. Worldly wise men have been responsible for the most of the confusion our civilization has seen. Men who get together in the places of Shinar and embark in real estate, and lay out great projects and pull in unsuspecting associates, and start up tremendous enterprises, and say, under their breath, in their secret meetings, We will get unto ourselves a great name. We will exalt ourselves to heaven, and after the world has done obeisance to us, we will walk among the angels and witness them bow down; but God still lives and reigns. The men who count themselves greatest are, in His judgment, the least; and those that reckon themselves most farseeing, He reckons the most foolish; and those who propose to get into Heaven by ways of their own appointment, He shuts out altogether and drives them from His presence, and they become wandering stars, reserved for the blackness of darkness; for we must learn that self-exaltation brings Gods abasement. He that exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. God is willing that man shall come to Heaven but, as some one has said, If we ever get to Heaven at all, it will not be by the dark and rickety staircases of our own invention, but on the ladder of Gods love in Christ Jesus.
God is willing that we should have a mansion, but the mansion of His desire is not the wooden or brick structure that would totter and fall, but the building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. God is willing that we should dwell in towers, but not the towers of pride and pomp, but those of righteousness wrought out for us in Christ Jesus.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
CRITICAL NOTES.
Gen. 6:2. Sons of God.]That these were angels is a view which, it is well-known, has been held from ancient times, both by Jews and Christians. Of the latter class may be named Justin and Tertullian among the ancients, and Luther, Stier, Baumgarten, Kurtz and Delitzsch among the moderns. Notwithstanding the weight of these names, we must, in preference, stand with those who decidedly oppose this interpretation; and this, for the following, among other reasons.
(1.) We need not leave the human family to find these sons of God, having already a basis for this noble title in the spiritual nearness of the Sethites to God (cf. Deu. 14:1; Deu. 32:5; Psa. 73:15; Pro. 14:26; Luk. 3:38.)
(2.) We interrupt the genesis of the book, if we go farther than man: it is, physically, a pure human development so far.
(3.) We set aside the natural generators of the race, the fathersto make way for angels and women!
(4.) We destroy the representative nature of this apostacy, putting it out of relation to those named in Numbers 25, Jud. 1:3, 1 Kings 11, 16, Revelation 2.
(5.) The story no longer serves for our admonition 1Co. 10:6.) It gratuitously imports what, with our present light, we must call a monstrosity (Mat. 22:30). That, in certain places (Job 1, 38) angels are termed sons of God, simply shows how extended the divine family is (cf. Eph. 3:15, , every family, or better perhaps, an entire family).
Gen. 6:3. Strive with.] Or, judge in; or plead with: rule over (Frst, Davies); be humbled in (Gesenius); remain, dwell in (Sept., Vulg., Arabic, etc.)They also are flesh.] Some render: In their erring: they are flesh.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Gen. 6:1-8
A DEGENERATE WORLD
Sin does not take long to spread. A few ages ago and it only existed in one or two hearts; but now it is almost universal in its prevalence. A little while ago the world was new and pure, dwelling in joy; now it is old in sin, contaminated by wickedness, and frowning with woe. There is a terrible contagion in moral evil. It soon spreads from the individual to the community, from the centre to the circumference of social life.
1. The organic unity of society is favourable to the spread of moral evil. The domestic life of man affords great opportunity for the progress of either good or evil. If an evil disposition, or a wicked habit gains possession of one member of the family, it is very likely to influence the rest. This intimate community of daily life renders the inmates of the household potent in influences which shall form the character and destiny of each other. The family bond is intimate, and sensitive, and one touch of good or evil passes forcefully through it into the human soul. And in common society itself there are many and varied connections which are fraught with potent influences to the mind and heart of man. The master influences his servant; the manager influences those under his control; and the casual intercourse of daily life is influential in determining the moral character of multitudes. Hence a message flashed on the wires of our domestic and social being, reaches to known and unknown destinies. The words we speak to-day, may to-morrow determine the mental and spiritual condition of many people. Hence the conditions of our social existence are favourable to the dire contagion of evil.
2. The native willingness of the human soul to do evil is favourable to the contagion of moral wrong. Seldom do men need to be reasoned into the evil pursuits of conduct, and if they do, a fallacious argument is sufficient to convince them. They do not even require to be solicited or invited to the wrong, they are willing, nay, eager, to find companions who will join them in their carnal pleasures. The unregenerate soul goes in quest of evil, and will work it greedily. It has a native tendency to sin. Hence we are not surprised to find the world rioting in moral wrong, when it is utterly destitute of that love to God, which alone can keep it right. We have here the sad picture of a degenerate world:
I. It is a world in which marriage is abused. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Thus we find that the longevity of men in those ages was productive of evil. Then one sinful life would extend much longer than at present, and consequently gave a greater encouragement and a more misleading example to wrong doers. The fear of death was largely removed, and men pursued their wicked pleasures without dread of the grave.
1. We find that marriage was commenced on a wrong principle. There has been a very long discussion as to the meaning of the phrases here used the sons of God and the daughters of men. The former have been regarded as the sons of princes, of angels, and of Sethites or godly men; and the latter as people of the lower orders of mankind generally, and of the Cainites, or of the rest of mankind as contrasted with the godly. It is clear that angels cannot be intended by the sons of God in this context, as they do not marry, nor are they given in marriage. It is evident that men were punished for the crime, as the earth and not heaven was deluged by water; we may therefore conclude, that man was the guilty party. Besides, the angels fell long before these ages, probably prior to the creation of the terrestrial globe. Also men, and not angels, were subject to the strivings of the Holy Spirit, hence we conclude that they were alone in their guilt. It is altogether wrong for the sons of God to marry the daughters of men. True, in the first instance, the useful arts, and the embellishments of social life, began to flourish in the house of Cain. Agriculture, commerce, music, and poetry, were cultivated among his descendants. Were the children of Seth to forego the benefit of participating in these advantages thus introduced into the social system? Certainly not. As the children of God they were at liberty to prosecute any laudable undertakings in this direction, but could they not have done this without unholy alliances? It is better to give up the refinements of the world than to abandon good moral character in the effort to attain them. There can be no valid excuse for an alliance in marriage between the church and the world. The church should never ally itself in matrimony with the world. What sympathy can the morally pure and good have with the morally unholy. Summer cannot ally itself to winter. Genius cannot ally itself to ignorance. Life cannot ally itself to death. Neither ought the morally light in the Lord to ally themselves with the morally dark in Satan. Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers, is an injunction the church needs to remember. We find also that physical beauty was made the basis of the matrimonial selection. The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair. Thus passion was the basis of the matrimonial life of the age. A man cannot be actuated by a meaner motive than this in seeking a wife. He needs mental intercourse and moral elevation and sympathy from her who is to be the companion of his life, and these are not always associated with physical beauty, nor will physical beauty compensate for their absence. The beauty of the face will soon fade. The moral beauty of the soul is untarnished by time, is rendered more lovely by the flight of years. It will be sought by the true-man, who will care more for womanly excellence than for artistic beauty. Much of the moral pollution of the age in which we live is due to unhallowed and injudicious marriages. Many people are united in wedlock before they reach manhood and womanhood, and often have to struggle through life with a poverty sadly conducive to crime. They sink beneath the social wave, and perhaps never rise to true enjoyment. If the young people of the land would make more thoughtful and hallowed marriages, seeking partners of pious conviction, of genial spirit, of cultivated thought, and of thrifty habit, the pauperism, the business of our criminal law courts, and the debasing influences of society would be almost entirely swept away. The conjugal alliances of men largely determine the moral character of a community.
2. We find that the marriage bond was violated by impurity. Here is the evil of promiscuous intermarriage without regard to spiritual character. The first inlet of sin prepares the way for the flood-gates of iniquity. It would seem that the men of those days had as many wives as their passion desired; they took them wives of all which they chose. When a nation loses the purity of its domestic life, its national glory will soon depart. The divorce court is a true but sad index to the worth of our national character. Under these conditions of home life it is easy to imagine the speedy prevalence of sin recorded in these verses. Parents and not legislators are the true guardians of the worlds moral purity.
II. It is a world in which violence prevails.There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
1. Men of physical strength became the rulers of the people. These giants were men of great physical energy, they were probably Cainites, and were much more violent than the Sons of God, and their descendants. Hence the warrior was the ruler of the age. Mere brute force, rather than legal right, or moral fitness, was the qualification for rulership. We have but little insight given in the inspired record, into the principles and method of government which prevailed in these early ages of the world, but it is probable that God himself was recognized as the true Governor of men; to Him offerings were brought, and to Him obedience ought to have been rendered. Hence we find that the strong men of the times in their self-imposed authority, were in direct rebellion to Jehovah. Surely we cannot imagine a more degenerate and lamentable condition of things than this, when all the foremost men of the day were in antagonism to the Supreme Ruler of the universe. But the people who seek to dethrone the Divine authority will speedily work their own ruin; nor was this an exception to the rule, and the destructive deluge shows how utterly impotent physical strength is in any contention with God.
2. Men of physical strength were the popular favourites of the day. They were men of fame. Fame was not during these ages achieved by rectorial equity and moral purity of character, but by deeds of daring and of blood. These giants were proud and haughty. They were impious. The offspring of these unholy marriages were the rulers of the advancing age, and their wicked training would well prepare them to perpetuate the violence and villainy of their fathers.
3. Men of physical strength were the terror of the day. They had no regard to the rights of the poor; the weak were despised and injured; the good, if any were to be found, were persecuted; legal rectitude was unheeded by them. Force was the supreme law of the age. It was indeed a reign of terror. Multitudes would wish it at an end. Force is the very essence of sin. Sin always brings nations into anarchy. A violent government is a sure guarantee for the spread of moral defilement.
III. It is a world in which spiritual influences are rejected. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
1. This degenerate world had not been entirely left to its own inclination. The world had not been entirely given up to the impurity of its domestic life, to the brutality of its violent measures, without the deep convictions of heaven being given, which were calculated to restrain its sin. It is not the economy of heaven to leave wickedness to itself until it plunges itself into its own hell. God mercifully endeavours to cleanse the impurity, and to subdue the violence of evil by the conviction and restraining influences of His Holy Spirit. Hence the augmented guilt and doom of the persistent wrong-doer. What would be the moral condition of the world without this corrective ministry, no human mind could conceive. God was indeed merciful to the apostate race in thus sending His Spirit to irradiate the darkened mind, to expostulate with the conscience of the violent, to prompt and strengthen holy resolve, and to bring back the heart of the world to Himself. But, alas! this glad result was not attained. The flesh prevailed. Life is a constant struggle between these two forces, the flesh of man and the Spirit of God, and but too often the issue is that of the degenerate times of which we write.
2. The degenerate world rejected the holy influences of heaven. The domestic impurity of the age did not yield to His holy touch. The giants of the age resisted the proper control he would put upon their violent energies. The age rejected the Spirit of God. Its individuals sought Him not. This is an awful possibility. Man is a free agent. He cannot be forced into compliance with rectitude. He must be a consenting party. The age that rejects the Spirit of God is truly in a degenerate and hopeless condition. It has no light to relieve its darkness. How many historic ages since these primitive times have been characterized by an utter absence of spiritual impulse and energy. They have been Godless. They have witnessed a strange growth of moral evil in the nations.
3. The degenerate world was in danger of losing the holy and correcting influences of heaven. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Heaven can afford to let the impure and violent men alone, because such will speedily achieve their own ruin. The violence of earth cannot injure the inhabitants of the heavens. It is only restrained for the good of man. If it is finally unrestrained, the Holy Spirit will leave the rebellious age to itself, until its impurity and violence shall be washed out and subdued by a great flood of waters. Irreparable punishment certainly follows the withdrawal of holy influences from the soul of man. It is a token of human obstinacy, and of the Divine displeasure. Our constant prayer should be, Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.
IV. It is a world under the immediate inspection of God. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
1. Thus God saw the wickedness of this ancient world. All the impurity and evil of this ancient world was passing day by day under the eye of God. And not merely did He behold its outward phases, but also its inward; He not merely saw the violence with which the earth was filled, but also the moral evil with which the heart was polluted. He saw the imagination of the thought of the heart. He sees the fountain of sin. What a sight it must have been for the infinite purity to behold! God seeth the heart of man. If purity does not reign in the thought and soul of man, however excellent he may be otherwise, he is destitute of the first principle of good. Men only read the worlds newspaper. God reads the worlds heart. A solemn thought. Should calm the passion of the world.
2. Thus God repented that He had made man. The scripture is frank and unreserved, some men would say, imprudent or regardless of misconstruction in its statements of truth. Repentance ascribed to the Lord, seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the eternal self-existent. But the sublime dictate of the inspired word is God is not a man, &c. (Num. 23:19). In sooth, every act here recorded, the observation, the resolve, the exception, seems equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeableness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference with the order of nature, seems at variance with inflexibility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly, God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of personality, freedom, and holiness; and the passage before us is designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action, and therefore to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit, analogous at least to those of the human. And, lastly, to verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists between the liberty and the immutability of God. That change of state, which is essential to will, liberty, and activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of the Divine purpose. (Dr. Murphy.) This expression clearly shews the abhorrence with which God regarded the sins of the primitive but degenerate world, and was the prelude of impending doom.
3. Thus God was grieved that he had made man.
V. It is a world threatened with destruction by God. The resolve is now formed to sweep away man from the face of the earth. Hitherto men had died; now they are to be drowned. This will be a standing monument of the wrath of God against sin to all future ages.
1. This threat was retributive.
2. This threat was comprehensive. It included man and beast and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. Man is the head of creation, and hence all below him is included in his doom. If the head is stricken from the human body all the members become dead. So in creation. These inferior creatures of the universe are not moral, and therefore the violent termination of their life is not penal.
3. This threat was mingled with mercy. Many years were to elapse before its occurrence, hence every opportunity would be given to prepare for it. We do not read that the degenerate world sought its removal; it would rather seem that they did not believe it would be executed. Such is the unbelief, folly, and hardihood of the sinner. Lessons:
1. To sanctify a long life by true piety lest it become a means of impurity.
2. To avoid unhallowed alliances.
3. To coincide with the convictions of the Spirit of God.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen. 6:1-2. The worst of women may be characterized by outward beauty.
Large increase of population is often associated with moral corruption.
Corrupt women are great snares to the church.
Sons of God different to the daughters of men:
1. In disposition.
2. In profession.
3. In moral character.
4. In eternal destiny.
Eminent Sons of God by profession may be influenced by the lust of the eye, then they become:
1. Corrupt.
2. Debased.
3. Violent.
4. Rebellious.
The lust of the eye disposeth to all sensuality and adultery.
A numerous offspring is no sure sign of Gods special favour.
Beauty is a dangerous bait, and lust is sharp sighted. It is not safe gazing on a fair woman. How many have died of the wound in the eye! No one means hath so enriched hell as beautiful faces. Take heed our eyes be not windows of wickedness and loopholes of lust [Trapp].
Let the church be aware of being entangled with the world. The society of the men of the world may have many advantages to hold out. Their daughters may be fair, they may have the power and policy of earth at their disposal, and they may excel in the arts of life, and in its busy commerce; and on all these grounds may be built many a specious reason for cultivating intercourse with them. There are these three modes of alliance with the ungodly, in family intercourse, in self defence and opposition to a common foe, and in the transaction of the common business of life, to which, in that early time, the family of Seth might be tempted; and they are the very snares into which Gods people are ever apt to fall. In these three ways they are continually led to make concessions tending to worldly conformity, and to compromise their high standing and their holy testimony, on the side of the Lord and of His truth [Dr. Candlish.]
The mingling of that which is of God with that which is of man, is a special form of evil, and a very effectual engine, in Satans hand, for marring the testimony of Christ on earth. This mingling may frequently wear the appearance of something very desirable; it may often look like a wider promulgation of that which is of God. Such is not the divine method of promulgating with, or of advancing the interests of those, who ought to occupy the place of witnesses for Him on the earth. Separation from all evil is Gods principle; and this principle can never be infringed without serious damage to the truth [C.H.M.]
Gen. 6:3.
I. That the Spirit of God does exert an influence on man for the purpose of securing his best interest. Notice
1. That this spiritual influence is universal. No doubt respecting its possibility. He who made man can influence him.
2. That this spiritual influence is essential to the production of good. Human nature is depraved, and therefore incapable of itself of producing anything good. As every drop of rain which falls from the clouds, and every spring that issues from the rocky mountains, comes from the mighty oceans; as the light which makes every planet and satellite gleam in the dark void of space comes from the sun; so does all good in man proceed from the Spirit of God.
3. That this spiritual influence is, in every case, limited by the conditions of mans free agency. Nothing compulsory in its nature. If religion be virtue, man in becoming religious must act from choice and not from necessity.
4. That this spiritual influence is effective in proportion to the adaptation of the means by which it acts upon mens minds. Nature. Providence. Chiefly the gospel.
II. That the Spirit of God may cease to influence men for good. This proved by facts. Saul (1Sa. 28:15); Belshazzar (Daniel 5); Jews in time of Jeremiah (Jer. 15:1).
III. That the Spirit of God ceases to influence man for good because of mans continued rebellion. For that he also is flesh. The word flesh is often used in Scripture to denote the sinfulness of man. This ceasing to strive may not be the result of a positive act of withdrawal of heavenly influences, so much as that of the law of nature which determines that the momentum of any moving body is diminished by constant resistance. In the moral universe, as well as in the physical, this law operates.
IV. That the benevolence of God is manifested in the manner in which spiritual influences are withdrawn from man. Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
1. The withdrawal never happens till after a long period of existence.
2. It never happens suddenly, but gradually.
3. It never happens without sufficient warning.(Evan Lewis in Homilist.)
I. A wonderful fact implied. The Holy Spirit shines with man.
1. Remarkable Power. Man can refuse to obey the Creator.
2. Amazing divine condescension.
3. Astonishing human obduracy.
4. A merciful reason. Why not abandon man. Love of God.
5. The benevolent purpose. That man may forsake sin.
6. The mysterious method.
II. An alarming fact stated.
1. A calamity of awful magnitude.
2. Most melancholy.(Homilist).
God may hold His peace at the lustful uncleanness of sinners for a long time, but He will finally speak with terror.
It is Gods word of threatening which is through revelation, which is declared by His preachers.
Gods Spirit strives for, with, and in men by the ministry for their salvation.
God may prohibit his Spirit any more to labour with rebellious souls.
Divine forbearance:
1. Long manifested.
2. Fearfully abused.
3. Finally withdrawn.
4. Must end in salvation or ruin.
Gen. 6:4. Giants in natural might and power may be also giants in sin.
Gods earth is made the habitation of all impiety and wickedness by mighty sinners.
The greatest might of sinners is but earthly.
Giants in sin are most violent with God when He strives to save them.
Unholy alliances between the Church and the world bring forth these giants.
Sin taketh a mighty power to itself:
1. Renown.
2. Antiquity.
3. Valour.
4. Dominion.
It is but a contemptible name and power with God which the mightiest of sinners have.
The names of sinners are recorded in Gods word that they may be abhorred.
EXTENT OF MANS WICKEDNESS
Gen. 6:5. The extent of mans wickedness is far greater than the generality of mankind have any conception of. Not merely words blameworthy, but also his heart. God looks chiefly at the heart. The heart of every man naturally wicked. In this verse God assigns His reason for destroying the whole world by a universal deluge.
I. The testimony of God respecting man. He speaks more immediately respecting the antediluvian world. In general, the wickedness of man was great in the earth. Every species of wickedness was committed in the most shameless manner. But more particularly, the hearts of men were evil; the thoughts of their hearts were evil; the imaginations of the thoughts were evil, and this too without exception, without mixture, without intermission; for every imagination was evil, and only evil, and that continually. What an awful statement. But how could this be ascertained? Only by God (Pro. 16:2). This is His testimony, after a thorough inspection of every human being. The same must be spoken of man at this day. Proved by observation. What has been the state of your hearts? Pride, anger, impure thoughts have sprung up in them. If occasionally a transient thought of good has arisen how coldly has it been entertained, how feebly has it operated, how soon has it been lost. Compared with what the law requires, and what God and His Christ deserve at your hands, do we not fall short of our duty?
II. What effect it should produce upon you.
1. Humiliation. On review of our words and actions we have all reason to be ashamed. Who amongst us could bear to have all his thoughts disclosed? Yet God beholds all; and has a perfect recollection of all that has passed through our minds from infancy. We ought to be humble. Our religious thoughts, when compared with what they ought to have been in number and intensity, are no less a ground of humiliation than those which have sprung from a more impure source; since they prove how defective are our conceptions of Gods excellency, and how faint our sense of the Redeemers love.
2. Gratitude. God sent His Son that through Him all our iniquities might be forgiven. Is not gratitude due to Him in return?
3. Fear. Though your hearts are renewed by divine grace, it is only in part; you have still the flesh within you, as well as the spirit. I need not tell you what precautions people take, when they carry a light in the midst of combustibles, which, if ignited, will spread destruction all around. Know, that ye carry such combustibles about you, and you know not how soon you may come in contact with somewhat that may cause an explosion. David, Be ye, then, not high-minded; but fear.(Simeon.)
God sees otherwise than man, such as are men of name here are men of shame with God.
Increase of sin after warning from God is full of provocation.
Moral evil:
1. Universal.
2. Bitter.
3. Multiplied.
4. Aggravated.
5. Outspreading.
6. Condemned.
Gods eye beholds mans inward as well as outward wickedness. None is hid.
Gods knowledge of mans inward life:
1. Thorough.
2. Certain.
3. Solemn.
4. Cannot be averted.
5. Cannot be mistaken.
Gen. 6:6. Gods fury on account of mans sin:
1. Because man as a sinner does not embody the ideal of moral life which God originally intended to manifest in him.
2. Because man as a sinner does not accomplish the purpose for which he was created.
3. Because man as a sinner is continually debasing his faculties and powers.
4. Because man as a sinner is missing the sublime destiny intended for him.
Sin will always awaken fury within the hearts of men who are in moral sympathy with God.
The fact that the sinner is Gods workmanship will not exempt him from destruction.
God will not suffer the earth to give comfort to sinners.
Gen. 6:7. Bitter and utter destruction is determined upon an ungodly world.
The whole creation subject to vengeance for the sin of man.
Gods creating goodness is a deep aggravation of the sin of such as rise against Him.
Sin is a destructive influence:
1. Destructive of human life.
2. Destructive of the life of the brute.
3. Destructive of the beauty of the earth.
4. Destructive of the immediate purposes of God.
LONELY MORAL GOODNESS
Gen. 6:8. We have just had pictured the sad condition of the primitive world; and now in beautiful but lonely contrast we are favoured with the mention of a man whose life was pure and Godly.
I. The Christian man is sometimes solitary in his companionships. It was so with Noah. Though the world was crowded with aged and renowned men, he was alone in it; there were none around whose characters would fit them to be his daily companions. He could not find companionship in the violent men of the age in which he lived. The star of his piety shed a solitary light in the great moral firmament of the times. There were no satellites to join him in his light-giving mission. The darkness was all around him. His was not fancied loneliness. At one time Elijah thought himself the only worshipper of the true God, he was ignorant of the thousands who had not bowed the knee unto Baal. God asserts the moral loneliness of Noah, and he could not be deceived in this matter. His eye would only too gladly have beheld another pure life amidst that mass of corruption. His loneliness was not the result of an exclusive spirit. He did not of set intention stand aloof from the social life of the world; he did not look down upon ordinary life with sublime contempt as a thing for men of lower spirit to engage in. He was not above the world. He was in the crowded world. He was lonely.
II. The Christian man is sometimes solitary in his character. The world was universally wicked. Noah was the only man who found grace in the eyes of the Lord. He was lonely in his moral goodness. He was animated by different motives, inspired by nobler ambitions, and engaged in grander pursuits than those by whom he was daily surrounded. He was calm and pure amidst the passion of the age. He was the real king of the age. His sceptre was his holy life. Heaven acknowledged him to be such. These royal spirits are generally lonely in this world. They will not be so in the next. There they will have congenial companionships. The sublime experiences of moral goodness must make a man more or less lonely in his inner life.
III. The Christian man is sometimes solitary in his work. Noah was lonely in his work. He had to build an ark. He was a lonely Christian. He was in the future to be a lonely hero. God gives to Christian men a work to perform, the doing of which may render them lonely, but loneliness is not always solitude, as God is always with the spirit of the lonely good. Sometimes a member of the family circle has a lonely task to accomplish in his home; the teacher in the class; and the minister in the sanctuary. Let us be brave in its execution.
The states and nature of gracious ones stand in opposition to the ungodly world.
It is the grace of God that makes good men what they are.
Gods gracious eye singles out souls, whom he delivereth from the worlds destruction.
Faith must be the finder of grace with God, and no work nor price of man.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
PART TWENTY:
THE WORLD BEFORE THE FLOOD
(Gen. 6:1-22)
1. Universal Degeneracy (Gen. 6:1-8).
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. 3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
5 And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the ground; both man, and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of Jehovah.
(1) Gen. 6:1. The word adamah is used here, translated ground: it occurs also in Gen. 6:7; Gen. 6:20, and in ch. 7, Gen. 6:4; Gen. 6:8. It is thus distinguished from erets, which occurs repeatedly throughout Genesis and in the story of the Flood in particular, and may be rendered either earth or land. (Incidentally space is lacking here for any elaborate discussion of the problems of the documentary (critical) analysis of the Genesis account of the Flood or those of the actual extent of the Flood as a historical event. For an exhaustive refutation of the former, the student is again advised to study Green (UBG) and Allis (FBM); and for equally thoroughgoing treatments of the latter, the various works recently published by Rehwinkel, Morris and Whitcomb, Archer, Unger, Ramm, et al: for a listing of these books, see Bibliographical material on the introductory pages of this textbook. C.C.C.).
(2) Gen. 6:2. The sons of God and the daughters of men. One theory is that marriage alliances were formed by supernatural beings with mortal women, and that from these unnatural unions there arose a race of heroes or demigods who must have figured largely in Hebrew folklore. It is implied, though not expressly said, that the existence of such beings, intermediate between the divine and the human, introduced an element of disorder into the Creation which had to be checked by the special interposition of Yahweh (Skinner, ICCG, 139). (See Hesiods account, in his Works and Days, of the ages of man: first, the golden race; then in the order named, the silver, the brazen, the demigods, and finally the iron race. Cf. also the myth of the Titans, that of the Cyclopes, and the accounts of the quasi-divine personages of the Heroic Age, etc.). Green (UBG, 53): The sons of God are not angels nor demigods, whose intermarriage with the daughters of men brought forth a race of monsters or superhuman beings. This purely mythological conceit was foisted upon the passage in certain apocryphal books like the book of Enoch; also by Philo and Josephus, who were misled by the analogy of ancient heathen fables. But it was repelled by the great body of Jewish and Christian interpreters from the earliest periods, though it has been taken up again by a number of modern scholars. It is assumed by them that a transgression of angels is here spoken of, though the existence of angels has not been before mentioned nor in any way referred to in the previous part of Genesis. This view has no sanction whatever in Scripture. Jude, Gen. 6:6-7, and 2Pe. 2:4 have been tortured into sustaining it; but they contain no reference to this passage whatever, And there is no analogy anywhere in the Bible for the adoption by the sacred writers of mythological notions in general, or for the idea in particular of the intermarriage of angels and men. The JB (21,n) summarizes: The author uses a popular story of a race of giants, in Hebr. Nephilim, the Titans of Eastern legend, born of the union between gods and mortals. The author does not present this episode as a myth nor, on the other hand, does he deliver judgment on its actual occurrence; he records the anecdote of a race of supermen simply to serve as an example of the increasing human malice that is to provoke the Deluge. Later Judaism and almost all the earliest ecclesiastical writers identify the sons of God with the fallen angels; but from the 4th century onward, as the ideas of angelic natures become less material, the Fathers commonly take the sons of God to be Seths descendants and the daughters of men those of Cain. That these phrases have reference to intermarriage of either demigods or angels with mortal women is absurd. As Green puts it (p. 54): Sexual relations are nowhere in Scripture attributed to superior beings. There is no suggestion that angels are married or are given in marriage; indeed the contrary is expressly declared (Mat. 22:30). Male and female deities have no place in the Bible, except as a heathen notion which is uniformly reprobated. The Hebrew language does not even possess a word for goddess. The whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought, and for that reason cannot be supposed to be countenanced here. The JB comment that from the 4th century on, the ideas of angelic nature became less material in the writings of the Fathers, seems to ignore completely these facts of the Scriptures themselves. There are, of course, poetic references to angels as sons of God in Job (Gen. 1:6, Gen. 2:1, Gen. 38:7) and in Psalms (Psa. 29:1, Psa. 89:6). The phrase occurs also in Dan. 3:25; here, however, the term has nothing to do with the use of it in Genesis, as it is the language of Nebuchadnezzar and hence represents a genuine heathen conception (or it could be an identification on the kings part, unwittingly of course, or a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Eternal Logos: cf. Mic. 5:2). On the contrary, the phrase, sons of God, is a common designation of the chosen people, the worshipers of the living and true God, throughout the Old Testament (cf. Exo. 4:22; Deu. 14:1; Deu. 32:5-6; Deu. 32:18-19; Hos. 1:10; Hos. 11:1; Isa. 43:6; Isa. 45:11; Jer. 31:20, cf. 2Co. 6:18), whereas worshipers of false gods are spoken of as sons and daughters of those gods (e.g., Num. 21:29, Mal. 2:11). It is in entire accord with this Biblical usage that the pious race, who adhered to the true worship of God, are called the sons of God in contrast with the descendants of Cain, who had gone out from the presence of Jehovah, and abandoned the seat of his worship entirely (Green, 55). Note also the correspondence between this interpretation and the numerous passages throughout the Pentateuch in which intermarriage of Israelites with Canaanites is viewed with deep concern, if not actually forbidden, lest the former should be seduced into idolatry, or into the gross moral corruptions of the Cult of Fertility, as a consequence. (E.g., in Gen. 24:3-4; Gen. 27:46; Gen. 28:1-2; Gen. 26:34-35; Gen. 28:6-8, ch. 34). Obviously any kind of warning against intermarriage with angels does not occur in Scripture, because it would have been meaningless.
Greens conclusions are irrefutable (UBG, 56): This explanation of how it came to pass that the pious portion of the race were infected with the universal degeneracy is not only appropriate in the connection, but is necessary to account for the universality of the following judgment, which is repeatedly and largely insisted upon. This is an integral and essential part of the narrative, the omission of which would leave an unfilled chasm. The primal source of human corruption had been germinally shown in the fall (ch. 3); the degeneracy of the Cainites had been traced (ch. 4). Nothing but good, however, had thus far been said of the race of Seth (Gen. 4:26, Gen. 5:22; Gen. 5:24; Gen. 5:29). That this pious race were themselves involved in the de-generacy which had overtaken the rest of mankind, is here stated for the first time. But this is necessary to explain why the whole race of man, with the exception of a single family, should be doomed to destruction. Again (56, 57): The explanation now given is further confirmed by Gen. 6:3, where sentence is passed for the offence described in the preceding verse. In what the offence consisted, if the sons of God were angels, is not very obvious. It is not illicit intercourse which is described: the terms used denote lawful marriage. But if it was wrong for the angels to marry women, the angels surely were the chief offenders; and yet no penalty is denounced upon angels. The divine sentence falls exclusively upon man. There is such an obvious incongruity in this that Budde insists that Gen. 6:3 is an interpolation and does not belong in this connection, but has been transferred from the account of the fall of our first parents. The incongruity that is alleged, however, does not show the verse to be an interpolation, but simply that the mythological sense which has been given to the passage is false. Finally, it is objected that the daughters of men must have the same universal sense in Gen. 6:2 as in Gen. 6:1; and that the contrast of the sons of God with the daughters of men shows that different orders of being are here referred to. But this contrast works precisely the other way. It has already been shown that in Scripture language the sons of God are his chosen peoplethe Godfearing race. In contrast with them the daughters of men are necessarily limited to the rest of mankind, the ungodly mass (ibid., p. 58). We conclude, therefore, without fear of successful contradiction, that what is pictured here is the intermingling of the pious Sethites with the profane Cainites; moreover, that the phrase, the sons of God, has special reference in this passage to the Messianic Line, which in the fifth chapter has been traced from Adam, through Seth, to Noah.
(3) Gen. 6:3. (a) My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever (cf. Joh. 16:7-8). My Spirit, that is, Ruach Elohim, the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit. Shall not strive with man, i.e., He will put no coercion on the volitions of men, and, after giving ample warning, instruction, and invitation, He will, as a just judgment, on the unbelieving and impenitent, withdraw his Spirit and let them alone (Murphy, MG, 197). Even Divine grace has its limits. God bore long and patiently with the iniquity of the antediluvian world, but the time came, as it always does in such cases, when longsuffering love had to give way to strict justice (Gal. 6:7-8). In our Dispensation, Gods love will follow man to his grave, but in all justice it cannot follow him farther (cf. Psa. 89:14; Rev. 20:13; Luk. 13:3; Luk. 16:19-31; Eze. 18:23; Isa. 55:7; 1Ti. 2:3-4; 2Pe. 3:9). God is not just a glorified bellhop who will be satisfied with our puny tips, nor is He a cosmic plumber whom we can call in for repairs and then dismiss nonchalantly. Not even Divine Love can go so far as to put a premium on sin! (b) For that he also is flesh, i.e., in view of the fact that the natural man is corporeal as well as spiritual (Gen. 2:7) and that now, since the fall, the flesh has gained the upper hand, and the spirit is in the bondage of corruption. (c) Yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. This statement if spoken of the generation then living, would mean that they should not survive that limit; if of successive generations of men, that this should henceforth be the term of human life. The former is demanded by the context. The latter is preferred by critics whose uniform usage is to interpret at variance with the context if possible. It is here absolutely without support. There is no suggestion anywhere that the duration of human life was ever fixed at one hundred and twenty years. It is contradicted by all that is recorded of the ages of subsequent patriarchs from Noah to Jacob. This verse, then, explicitly points to a catastrophe, in which that whole generation should be involved, and which should take place in one hundred and twenty years (Green, p. 60). Gods Spirit has always striven with man, even from the beginning when He tried to bring the first sinners to the point of repentance and confession. But even Divine grace has its limits, and, when the wickedness of man became so great that the earth was literally filled with violence, God of necessity said, I will destroy (cf. Eze. 21:27, Act. 17:26). But even then He sent Noah to warn the antediluvians of things not seen as yet (Heb. 11:7), and granted a reprieve of one hundred and twenty years to give them opportunity for repentance and reformation and so to demonstrate to future generations that the judgment to come upon them was just. This is a demonstration of the limits to which the love of God will go, to pardon and to restore one of His rebellious creatures. If a human soul is bound to go to perdition, he must do so in the very face of the ineffable manifestations of His longsuffering grace (Joh. 3:16-17; Joh. 1:17; Rom. 3:24; Rom. 5:20; Eph. 2:8; Tit. 2:11; 1Pe. 5:12; 2Pe. 3:18).
(d) T. Lewis summarizes (CDHCG, 285): One has no right to say that the contrast of spirit and flesh in the moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not occur in the Old Testament, unless it can be shown that this is not a clear case of it. Again, in re Gen. 6:3 : When ruach is thus regarded as the spiritual, or rational, in man, in distinction from the carnal, the sentence becomes a prediction, instead of a declaration of judgmenta sorrowful prediction, we may say, if we keep in view the predominant aspect or feeling of the passage. The spirit, the reason, that which is most divine in man, will not always rule in him. It has, as yet, maintained a feeble power, and interposed a feeble resistance, but it is in danger of being wholly overpowered. It will not hold out forever; it will not always maintain its supremacy. And then the reason given suits exactly with such a prediction: he is becoming flesh, wholly carnal or animal. If allowed to continue he will become utterly dehumanized, or that worst of all creatures, an animal with a reason, but wholly fleshly in its ends and exercises, or with a reason which is but the servant of the flesh, making him worse than the most ferocious wild beasta very demona brutal nature with a fiends subtlety only employed to gratify such brutality. Man has the supernatural, and this makes the awful peril of his state. By losing it, or rather by its becoming degraded to be a servant instead of a lord, he falls wholly into nature, where he cannot remain stationary, like the animal who does not leave the habitation to which God first appointed him. The higher being, thus utterly fallen, must sink into the demonic, where evil becomes his god, if not, as Milton says, his good. . . . The whole aspect of the passage gives the impression of something like an apprehension that a great change was coming over the racesomething so awful, so irreparable, if not speedily remedied, that it would be better that it should be blotted out of earthly existence, all but a remnant in whom the spiritual, or the divine in man might yet be preserved. Again: On these deeper aspects of humanity, consult that most profound psychologist, John Bunyan, in his Holy War, or his History of the Town of Mansoul, its revolt from King Shaddai, its surrender to Diabolus, and its recovery by Prince Immanuel. Bunyan was Bible-taught in these matters, and that is the reason why his knowledge of man goes so far beyond that of Locke, or Kant, or Cousin. Cf. also Aristotle (Politics, I, 3, 30): For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. Are not the foregoing descriptions of mans lurking bestiality supported today by the front page stories in every newspaper throughout the entire world? (Cf. Mat. 24:37-39, Luk. 7:26-27).
(4) Gen. 6:4. (a) The Nephilimwho were they? The LXX translates it giants; other old Greek versions, violent men. The word occurs again only oncein Num. 13:33. The notion that the Nephilim of this passage in Numbers were lineal descendants of those of Genesis 6 is simply an unproved assumption of the destructive critics, obviously for the purpose of casting doubt on the authenticity of the text and perhaps of the entire narrative of the Flood. The giants of Numbers were Canaanites, evidently men of great stature and powerful frame, whose size so excited the imagination of the spies sent out by Moses (Caleb and Joshua excepted) that their report was a gross exaggeration of the facts. (Cf. also 1Sa. 17:4-10; 1Sa. 21:9; 1Sa. 22:10). How could the Nephilim reported by the spies have been descendants of those of antediluvian times if there had occurred in the meantime a catastrophe which had swept away all mankind except Noah and his family? Green (UBG, 575 8) holds that Gen. 6:4 indicates that the Nephilim did not spring from the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men, because, the statement is that the Nephilim were in the earth prior to these intermarriages, and also after these intermarriages had taken place. Again: The idea that the Nephilim were a superhuman race sprung from the union of angels with the daughters of men is completely nullified by the explicit declaration that the Nephilim existed before such marriages took place as well as after. No new species of creatures can be intended, therefore, whose origin is traced to the intermarriage of different orders of beings. With this last statement we can agree. But we see no particular reason from the reading of the Scripture text, for arguing that the Nephilim existed before and after the intermingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men.
(b) A question of some import arises at this point, namely, Were the Nephilim of a pre-Adamic breed? Certainly this is not to be regarded as an impossibility. Cf. Archer (SOTI, 188189): To revert to the problem of the Pithecanthropus, the Swanscombe man, the Neanderthal and all the rest (possibly even the Cro-Magnon man, who is apparently to be classed as Homo sapiens, but whose remains seem to date back at least to 20,000 B.C.), it seems best to regard these races as all prior to Adams time, and not involved in the Adamic covenant. We must leave the question open, in view of the cultural remains, whether these pre-Adamite creatures had souls (or, to use the trichotomic terminology, spirits). But the implication of Gen. 1:26 is that God was creating a qualitatively different being when He made Adam (for note that the word rendered man in Gen. 1:26-27 is the Hebrew Adam), a being who was uniquely fashioned in the image of God. Only Adam and his descendants were infused with the breath of God and a spiritual nature corresponding to God Himself. Rom. 5:12-21 demands that all mankind subsequent to Adams time, at least, must have been literally descended from him, since he entered into covenant relationship with God as the representative of the entire race of man. This indicates that there could have been no true genetic relationship between Adam (the first man created in the image of God) and the pre-Adamic races. However close the skeletal structure of the Cro-Magnon man (for example) may have been to Homo sapiens, this factor is scarcely relevant to the principal question of whether these cave men possessed a truly human soul or personality. They may have been exterminated by God for reasons unknown prior to the creation of the original parent of the present human race. Adam, then, was the first man created in the spiritual image of God, according to Gen. 1:26-27, and there is no evidence from science to disprove it. As Archer points out, the French scientist, Lecomte du Nouy, in his remarkable volume, Human Destiny, explains evolution as a response to the Divine Will. Man arises, he insists, from within the evolutionary process; and at a certain moment, perhaps in connection with the Cro-Magnon age, man became truly man by a mutationa mutation in which God breathed into him free will, and a capacity to choose between good and evil, i.e. a conscience. (Cf. Archer, ibid., 188, n.).
(c) However, it seems to me that Lange comes nearer to the solution of this problem (CDHCG, 286). In discussing the phrases, mighty men that were of old, men of renown, he writes: A designation, not merely of offspring from the mismarriages, but referring also to the Nephilim who are earlier introduced, as it appears from the appended clause. The author reports things from his own standpoint, and so the expression, they were of old, men of renown, affirms their previous existence down to that time. Cain was the first. But now there are added to the Cainites and the Cainitic degenerate offspring of these sensual mesalliances. It was true, then, as it has been in all other periods of the worlds history, the men of violent deeds were the men of renown, very much the same whether famous or infamous. Cornfeld contributes to the clarification of the problem as follows (AtD, 25): We may perhaps link the Nephilim of Genesis with the mighty men that were of old, these semi-legendary heroes of prehistory whose memory and deeds are recorded in the ancient annals of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and other lands of antiquity. These were the founders of the first dynasties, lawgivers and the like. The word Nephilim (in Arabicnabil) means princes. So the Nephilim need not be interpreted as a race of giants, but great men. In this Hebrew tradition the crisis described here was held as proof that these semi-divine and arrogant Nephilim were more bent on evil than good. . . . In the opinion of G. Ernest Wright the tradition of early giants on the earth may coincide with the beginning of the Dynastic Ages from 3000 B.C.E. (the Early Bronze Age) and the succession of kings who established the first great empires. Great personalities who stood head and shoulders above their fellows began to emerge. Illustrations of the time may be held to explain the fame of such giants.
(d) How did Gods Spirit strive with the antediluvians? How, according to Scripture does Gods Spirit, the Holy Spirit, uniformly strive with rebellious man? How, or by what means, does the Spirit convict men of sin, righteousness and judgment (Joh. 16:8)? Through the instrumentality of the Word, of course, spoken or written: faith comes from reading or hearing the Divine Word (Rom. 10:14-17). Experience thus confirms Scripture: where there is no preaching, no hearing, no reading of the Word, no contact with the Word, there is no faith, no conversion, no Church. The entire evangelistic and missionary enterprise of the Church of Christ is predicated on this fact (Act. 28:23-28). The Spirit and the Word go together (Isa. 59:21). The Spirit and the Word (Logos) acted together in the Creation (Gen. 1:2-3, etc.). The Spirit sustains and preserves the whole Creation by the power of the Word (Heb. 1:1-4, 2Pe. 3:5-7). The Spirit has, in all ages, wrought miracles by the instrumentality of the Word (Num. 20:7-13; Jos. 10:12-13; Joh. 1:1-14; Mat. 14:19-20; Mat. 8:3; Mat. 8:8; Joh. 4:50; Mat. 8:32, Mar. 1:25; Mar. 1:22; Mar. 1:27; Luk. 7:14; Joh. 11:43; Act. 3:6; Act. 9:34; Act. 9:40; Heb. 4:12; Luk. 16:29-31; Rom. 10:6-8). The Spirit strove with men through the Word proclaimed by holy men of old (2Pe. 1:21, 1Pe. 1:10-12, Heb. 1:1, Neh. 9:30); through the teaching of Christ who possessed the Holy Spirit without measure (Joh. 3:34; Joh. 6:63; Joh. 8:31-32; Joh. 17:17; Mat. 7:24-27; Heb. 1:2; Mat. 12:28, cf. Exo. 8:19, Luk. 11:20the finger of God is, in Scripture a metaphor of power exercised by the Spirit of God); through the Word proclaimed and recorded by the Spirit-guided Apostles (Joh. 14:26; Joh. 15:26-27; Joh. 16:7-15; Act. 1:8; Act. 10:36-43; 1Co. 2:6-16; 1Th. 2:13; 1Co. 14:37, etc.). The Seed of the Kingdom is the Word of God (Luk. 8:11); it is the incorruptible seed, because spiritual life is in it and is generated through it (1Pe. 1:23); hence, the Gospel isnot just a power, nor one of the powersbut the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes (Rom. 1:16-17). How, then, did the Spirit strive with men in antediluvian times? Through Noah, of course, who was Gods preacher of righteousness to the people of his day (2Pe. 2:5). How did Noah come to know of the doom about to descend on mankind? He knew it by faith, that is, God forewarned him of the impending catastrophe and he believed God (Heb. 11:7). For one hundred and twenty years Noah proclaimed the inevitability of Divine judgment; for one hundred and twenty years, Christ, through Noah, warned the masses of the antediluvian world who by this time had, by their own wicked works, incarcerated themselves in the prison house of sin (Isa. 42:6-8; Isa. 61:1-3; Luk. 4:17-19; 1Pe. 3:18-22), that unless they repented, they should all likewise perish (cf. Luk. 13:3). But all in vain! The only thanks he got was scorn, ridicule, and perhaps even violence. (I am reminded of the old-time preachers sermon subject, What Happened to the Carpenters who Helped Noah Build the Ark? What did happen to them? The pit of the abyss, of course!) The Spirit of God is still striving with ungodly men, calling them to repentance and redemption. But He will not always do so: the time will come when the line between Divine mercy and justice will surely be drawn. The Spirit has ceased striving with His Old Covenant people and they are today suffering the consequences of their rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mat. 23:37-39; Mat. 27:25; Luk. 21:20-24). The time will come, and indeed may not be too far off (cf. Mat. 24:35-39; Mat. 24:29-31), when Gods Spirit will quit striving with all humanity (Mat. 25:31-46); then cometh judgment (Heb. 9:27, Act. 17:30-31, Mat. 12:41-42, Rom. 2:1-11), in which all mankind shall be judged, each according to his own works (Rom. 14:10-12; 2Co. 5:10; 2Co. 11:15; Gal. 67; Heb. 10:26-27; Rev. 20:11-14; Rev. 22:10-15).
(5) Gen. 6:5-8. (a) Gods repentance. Note the JB rendering (6769): Yahweh saw the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that the thoughts in his heart fashioned nothing but wickedness all day long. Yahweh regretted having made man on the earth, and his heart grieved. I will rid the earths face of man, my own creation, Yahweh said, and of animals also, reptiles too, and the birds of heaven; for I regret having made them. But Noah found favour with Yahweh. The JB annotator, who follows the critical theory in general, including the Documentary Hypothesis, comments as follows: There are several Babylonian stories of the Flood which are in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical narrative. This last does not derive from them but draws upon the same source, namely upon the memory of one or more disastrous floods in the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris which tradition had enlarged to the dimensions of a world-wide catastrophe. But there is this fundamental difference: the author has used this tradition as a vehicle for teaching eternal truthsthat God is just and merciful, that man is perverse, that God saves his faithful ones (cf. Heb. 11:7). The Flood is a divine judgment which foreshadows that of the latter days (Luk. 17:26 f; Mat. 24:37 f), just as Noahs salvation prefigures the saving waters of baptism, (1Pe. 3:20-21). (p. 23, n.). Again: This regret of God is a human way of expressing the fact that tolerance of sin is incompatible with his sanctity (1Sa. 15:29 warns us that the phrase is not to be taken too literally); but in a far greater number of passages it means that Gods anger is appeased and his threat withdrawn, see Jer. 26:3. Cornfeld writes in similar vein (AtD, 26): There is an architectural unity in the spirit of the traditions related to the ten generations preceding Noah. The writers sketch the gradual deterioration of man and an increase in sin and violence which parallels his increase in knowledge and skill. As he gains in power, man turns against his Creator and corrupts the earth through violence. There is an implied warning against the insidious dangers of man following his own designs without heeding his responsibility before God, to whom he is answerable. God is described as experiencing human feelings of grief that he had ever created man, and he decided to punish the world. Some steps were taken to curb this upsurge of man to semi-divinity, such as the reduction of mans hitherto phenomenally long life-span to one hundred and twenty years. As violence did not abate, drastic punishment was called for. This is obviously an etiological tale meant to explain the proverbial span which one Jew still wishes another. (See supra: this 120-year life-span theory does not harmonize with Scripture as a whole. Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen. 25:7); cf. also Psa. 90:10 and similar O.T. passages. The theory is wholly at variance with relevant New Testament teaching. The 120 years were obviously years of Divine grace extended to the antediluvian people for the purpose of giving them opportunity to repent and reform their lives.)
Murphy states the problem involved here, with great clarity (MG, 182): Repentance ascribed to the Lord seems to imply wavering or change of purpose in the Eternal Self-Existent. . . . In sooth, every act here recordedthe observation, the resolve, the exceptionseems equally with the repentance to jar with the unchangeableness of God. To go to the root of the matter, every act of the divine will, of creative power, or of interference with the order of nature, seems at variance with inflexibility of purpose. But, in the first place, man has a finite mind and a limited sphere of observation, and therefore is not able to conceive or express thoughts or acts exactly as they are in God, but only as they are in himself. Secondly, God is a spirit, and therefore has the attributes of personality, freedom and holiness; and the passage before us is designed to set forth these in all the reality of their action, and thereby to distinguish the freedom of the eternal mind from the fatalism of inert matter. Hence, thirdly, these statements represent real processes of the Divine Spirit, analogous at least to those of the human. And, lastly, to verify this representation, it is not necessary that we should be able to comprehend or construe to ourselves in all its practical detail that sublime harmony which subsists between the liberty and the immutability of God. That change of state which is essential to will, liberty, and activity, may be, for aught we know, and from what we know must be, in profound unison with the eternity of the divine purpose. Green (UBG, 63): Human feelings attributed to God (Gen. 6:6; Gen. 6:8). Elohim is the general term for God, and describes him as the creator of the world and its universal governor, while Jehovah is his personal name, and that by which he has made himself known as the God of a gracious revelation. Hence divine acts of condescension to men and of self-manifestation are more naturally associated with the name Jehovah; whence it follows that anthropopathies and anthropomorphisms occur chiefly in Jehovah sections. But there is no inconsistency between the ideas which these are intended to suggest and the most spiritual and exalted notions of the Most High. The loftiest conceptions of God are, throughout the Scriptures, freely combined with anthropomorphic representations. His infinite condescension is no prejudice to his supreme exaltation. These are not different ideas of God separately entertained by different writers, but different aspects of the divine Being which enter alike into every true conception of Him. (Cf. 1Sa. 15:29; 1Sa. 15:35; Amo. 5:8; Amo. 7:3; Amo. 5:21; Gen. 8:21; Lev. 1:13; Lev. 26:31; esp. Jer. 18:5-10). (An anthropomorphic passage is one in which God is represented as thinking and acting as human being would think and act; an anthropopathic statement is one in which God is represented as experiencing the feelings such as a human being would experience.)
Lange summarizes the problem before us with complete clarity, as follows (CDHCG, 287): A peculiarly strong anthropopathic expression, which, however, presents the truth that God, in consistency with his immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man (Psa. 18:27), and that, as against the impenitent man who identifies himself with the sin, he must assume the appearance of hating the sinner in the sin, even as he hates the sin in the sinner. But that Jehovah, notwithstanding, did not begin to hate man, is shown in the touching anthropomorphism that follows, and it grieved him in his heart. The first kind of language is explained in the flood, the second in the revelation of Peter, 1Pe. 3:19-20; 1Pe. 4:6. Against the corruption of man, though extending to the depths of his heart, there is placed in contrast Gods deep grieving in his heart. But the repentance of God does not take away his unchangeableness and his counsel, but rightly establishes them, so neither does Gods grieving detract from his immutability in blessedness, but shows, rather, Gods deep feeling of the distance between the blessedness to which man was appointed and his painful perdition. Delitzsch does indeed maintain it, as most real or actual truth, that God feels repentance, and he does not equate this position with the doctrine of Gods unchange-ableness, unless it be with the mere remark that the pain and purpose of the divine wrath are only moments in an everlasting plan of redemption, which cannot become outward in its efficacy without a movement in the Godhead. And yet movement is not change. Repentance, in Scripture, is a turning expressed in terms of will (Mat. 12:39-41; Jon. 3:8; Act. 26:17-18; Isa. 1:16-17; Heb. 6:1). Repentance, insofar as man is concerned, is a turning expressed in terms of will leading to a reformation of life, as clearly portrayed in the Narrative of the Forgiving Father (Luk. 15:7; Luk. 15:18-24). With God also, repentance is a turning expressed in terms of attitude, disposition, will; a turning occasioned by the kind of response that is in harmony with changing attitudes in man, but in terms of the immutable norms of Divine justice and mercy. (This is illustrated most clearly, perhaps in Jer. 18:5-10). (Cf. Exo. 13:17-18; Exo. 32:1-14; Psa. 110:4, Heb. 7:21; Jer. 4:28 : in many Scriptures, Gods repentance indicates simply a change of purpose, without strong anthropopathic overtones.)
REVIEW QUESTIONS
See Gen. 6:13.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
VI.
(1) When men (the adam) began to multiply.The multiplication of the race of Adam was probably comparatively slow, because of the great age to which each patriarch attained before his first-born was brought into the world: though, as the name given is not necessarily that of the eldest, but of the son who enjoyed the birthright, it does not follow that in every case the one named was absolutely the eldest son. There may have been other substitutions besides that of Seth for Cain; and Noah, born when his father was 182 years of age, seems a case in point. He was selected to be the restorer of mankind because of his piety, and may have had many brothers and sisters older than himself. Each patriarch, however, begat sons and daughters, and as we find Cain building a city, he must have seen, at all events, the possibility of a considerable population settling round him. It was probably, as we saw above, about the time of Enoch that the corruption of the family of Adam began to become general.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
ANTEDILUVIAN WICKEDNESS, 1-8.
After finishing the genealogical records of the Cainites and Sethites, the narrative now, in the short section, Gen 6:1-8, returns to a general description of the antediluvian race. Having distinctly traced each family down to the time of Noah, the writer now describes the mingling of the two which resulted in the widespread corruption that immediately preceded the deluge. So this introduction to the history of the Deluge is properly connected with the “generations of Adam,” (Gen 5:1,) rather than with the “generations of Noah . ” Comp . Introd . , p . 50 .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Book of the Generations of Adam, Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8.
Here begins another of the main divisions of our volume. As observed in the Introduction, (p. 50,) it is not an account of the origin or creation of Adam, nor even of his oldest progeny, but of his posterity through the line of Seth, who is treated as having taken the place of Abel. Gen 4:25. It is our author’s habit to unfold a series of events connected as in a chain of causes and effects, and then to return and take up one or another for further development and detail . So in the following genealogy, the age, offspring, and death of each patriarch are given, and then the record returns in every case to narrate events in the lives of his descendants which transpired before his death.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them.’
This is the connecting link with Genesis 5. It assumes a gradual growth in the human race, and thus connects back directly to the descriptions of the growth of mankind there, and especially to the references to daughters. That is the only place, with the exception of Naamah (Gen 4:22), that we have learned of daughters being born to men.
Furthermore the suggestion of daughters to Noah has probably been deliberately excluded precisely because of the connection with these next verses. So this section is an integral part of the covenant record commencing in Gen 5:1 b and contains the covenant which is central to this particular record, in a passage that is leading up to the flood. It is not a very pleasant conclusion. It suggests that what is to follow was largely the result of the activities of women, although probably encouraged by their menfolk, which occurred almost right from the beginning, including at some stage the daughters of the line of Seth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The History of and Genealogy of Noah ( Gen 5:1 a – Gen 6:9 ) (TABLET III)
This section commences with a list of ten patriarchs from Adam to Noah, and is followed by a passage where God makes a covenant with man after a particularly devastating example of man’s downward slide. As always in Genesis this covenant is the central point around which the passage is built. The passage ends with the colophon ‘these are the histories of Noah’. This mixture of genealogy and history is a commonplace in ancient Near Eastern literature.
The list of ten patriarchs can be compared with the Sumerian king lists (see article, ” “) which delineate ‘kingship’ in Sumer, and it is especially interesting that the latter lists the kings ‘before the Flood’. Thus this list in Genesis may well be patterned on similar ideas. Among other things it underlines the importance the compiler of the Genesis list placed on the patriarchs.
It is probable that the Genesis list has selected ten patriarchs to represent the whole line and is not all-inclusive. Notice that there are also ten patriarchs listed from Noah to Abraham after the flood. Other ancient Near Eastern lists also have ten kings named before the flood, and in some cases the seventh in line is seen as having heavenly connections, so that this is a recognised ancient pattern. The deliberate omission of names from genealogies is witnessed to throughout the Bible, with ‘begat’ simply portraying descent. We notice, for example, that Matthew deliberately does this with the genealogy of Jesus to make a series of fourteen (twice seven) generations. The number ten suggests a complete series (thus Jacob could say ‘your father has changed my wages ten times’ (Gen 31:7) meaning many times).
The Sumerian King Lists
The reigns (and therefore the ages) of the Sumerian kings before the flood were excessively large, even by patriarchal standards (e.g. ten sars = 36,000 years for a sar was 60 x 60 = 3,600). This may be due to an ancient memory of long-lived kings, with the numbers invented because no actual numbers were known.
However it is an interesting possibility that this has arisen because when the number system was being developed the sexagessimal system, which finally prevailed, was in competition with decimal systems (to put the matter simply). Thus if a sar at the time when these numbers were first postulated represented 10 x 10 to the compiler, rather than 60 x 60, the 36,000 years becomes 1,000 years which is more in line with the patriarchal ages.
Then we could suggest that in the course of time these sars became interpreted as meaning 3,600, the system which finally prevailed, producing these excessively larger numbers. However, either way, the ages suggest extraordinarily long lives and it would seem that the purpose was to show recognition that long periods of time, disappearing into the distant past, had occurred before the flood. Unlike the patriarchs these periods are consecutive in total thus numbering either 241,200 years or at minimum 6,700 years.
The numbers for these earlier kings were all round numbers, in contrast with later reigns of the kings, which in itself indicates they are not to be taken literally.
The Ages of the Patriarchs
In the same way it is doubtful if we should take the ages given for the patriarchs as literal, although they are clearly intended to convey the fact of longevity, and the passage of a long period of time. Let us tabulate them.
Patriarchs Begets at Remainder Dies at
Adam 130 800 930
Seth 105 807 912
Enos 90 815 905
Cainan 70 840 910
Mahaleel 65 830 895
Jared 162 800 962
Enoch 65 300 365
Methuselah 187 782 969
Lamech 182 595 777
Noah 500 450 950
There were a hundred years from the birth of Noah’s sons to the Flood. Thus if the numbers are taken literally and it is accepted that no names are omitted Methuselah died in the year of the flood, Lamech five years before, and Noah lived until the time of Abraham, while his son Shem actually outlived Abraham and would still be the head of the family when Isaac took over. This must seem unlikely in view of the silence of the narratives.
The Ages of the Later Patriarchs
We can compare these with ages in the remainder of Genesis.
Isaac is born when Abraham is one hundred
Abraham dies at one hundred and seventy five
The promise of Isaac comes when he is ninety nine, but this is
clearly due to being one year before the birth at 100
Abraham is eighty six when Hagar bears Ishmael. This is ten years after entry into the promised land at seventy five plus the year required for birth
Sara dies at one hundred and twenty seven
Ishmael dies at one hundred and thirty seven
Isaac marries at forty and has his first child at sixty
Isaac dies at one hundred and eighty
Esau marries at forty
Jacob meets Pharaoh when one hundred and thirty
Jacob is seventeen years in Egypt
Jacob dies at one hundred and forty seven
Joseph is seventeen when sold into captivity
Joseph is thirty when released from prison
Joseph dies at one hundred and ten
The only one that does not end in nought or seven is at the birth of Ishmael and that Isaiah 14 years (7 + 7) short of the birth of the son of promise, and is ten years, plus one for birth, after entry into Canaan (see Gen 16:3).
Are The Numbers Intended To Be Taken Literally?
Notice how many of the numbers in all cases end in nought or five, which were probably both seen as ‘round numbers’, and how many of the remainder end in seven. This is hardly likely on genuine ages (even if, in the days before numbers were invented or prominent, men could have kept such records, or even wanted to). The account has all the signs of being an ancient record, and while God could no doubt have revealed the ages, (although this would be unlike His usual method of inspiration), the above fact tends to nullify the idea that He did so.
In the first list only three in the first list, two in the second and four in the third do not end in nought or five. Thirteen of the thirty end in nought and eight end in five, that is over two thirds. Of the nine that end in another number, three end in seven, the divine number, and another three arise because of the seven endings. Two of the three remaining arise in Jared’s age, and therefore count as one (the one causes the other), the other is in the age of Methuselah who cannot be alive when the flood comes, yet, as the son of Enoch, needs to live as long as possible to demonstrate God’s blessing on Enoch in view of Enoch’s own ‘short’ life. This would appear conclusive evidence that the numbers are not intended literally.
Furthermore the age of Methuselah may intend to show him as falling short of 1000 less thirty years (compare Adam 1000 less seventy) directly because of the flood.
What Significance Could They Have?
Let us, however consider another fact. Adam is depicted as dying at 930, seventy short of one thousand. Certainly in later times a thousand years depicts the perfect time span. Thus Adam is shown to die seventy years (seven x ten = a divine period) short of the perfect life span. This can be seen as demonstrating that his death is God’s punishment for his sin.
Enoch is ‘taken’ at 365. This was at that time the recognised number of days in a year, and the year was connected with the heavenly bodies. 365 was thus the heavenly number, and his age thus reveals him as the heavenly man. He is the seventh in the list, the ‘perfect’ man. Significantly in the lists of other nations the seventh man is also often seen as especially connected with the heavens.
Lamech dies at 777. If ‘seventy and seven’ previously intensified the figure seven for the Lamech of the line of Cain (Gen 4:24), how much more ‘seven hundred and seventy and seven’ demonstrates the godliness of the Lamech of the line of Seth. The two are clearly seen in contrast. One uses the divine number for his own benefit, the other is benefited by God to an even greater extent. He is of the chosen line.
As suggested above Methuselah’s age may have been based on one thousand less thirty falling short by one.
With regard to the remaining names there is uniformity as regards the ages after begetting. Following Adam’s 800 the next five are 800 or 800 plus a number which is significant elsewhere – seven, fifteen, forty and thirty. Note also that Noah has 500 years before he begets, in total contrast with the others. If we take the numbers literally it would mean that Noah is still alive when Abraham is born and Shem outlives Abraham and is alive when Jacob and Esau are born! Would God really have called Abraham to leave such worthy company?
I will not pretend to be able to solve the riddle of the numbers which have exercised the minds of many. Suffice to say that they are lost in the mists of time, (and the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint have different numbers), but certainly we can see the high numbers, signifying longevity, as intended to get over the message that the line of Seth was blessed with long life. When we consider the mystical value put on numbers in those days, it is not surprising that they should be utilised to give divine messages. (The time of Abraham was the period when mathematics reached its highest point among the Sumerians and Old Babylonians, only to rapidly decline and not revive again for a thousand years).
What is interesting, however, is the fact that the message was put over by adding and taking away, and not by multiplying. This again is an indication of the age of the narrative.
Thus it seems to us that the list is intended to convey longevity, and that is also intended, through a representative selection of ten which deliberately makes Enoch the seventh in line, to cover all generations who lived before the flood. This is sufficient for the writers purpose in accordance with ancient methodology. The overall impression intended is to convey the idea of a very long period of time.
We will now consider the narrative (see e-Sword verse comments).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
“The Histories of the Sons of Noah” – The Flood ( Gen 6:9 b – Gen 10:1 a) – TABLET IV
It has been common practise among a large number of scholars to seek to split the flood narrative into different so-called ‘documents’. This has partly resulted from not comparing them closely enough with ancient writings as a whole and partly from over-enthusiasm for a theory. There is little real justification for it. Repetitiveness was endemic among ancient writings, and is therefore not a hint of combined narratives, and the intermixture of statistical material, such as dating, with story type is known elsewhere. The interchanging of the divine names Yahweh and Elohim has already been noted as occurring for good reasons (Gen 4:25-26; Gen 5:29).
The whole account is a clear unity, and is formulated on a 7 day – 40 day – 150 day – 150 day – 40 day – 7 day pattern (the numbers partly inclusive), taking us from when God commanded Noah to enter the ark to the return of the dove with the olive leaf which showed the Flood was over. The causes of, and purposes for, the Flood are consistent throughout, as are its final aims. There is certainly expansion in thought, but there is no contradiction. (Alternately we may see it as a 7 – 40 – 150 – 40 – 7 pattern depending on how we read Gen 8:3).
The Flood
The word for flood is ‘mabbul’ which only occurs outside Genesis 6-11 in Psa 29:10, where its meaning is disputed. In Psalms 29 its use follows the description of an extremely devastating storm ‘caused’ by Yahweh which strips the trees bare, and ‘Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood’ may well therefore mean that He causes, and takes responsibility for, even the subsequent cataclysmic flood. But it may alternatively mean that ‘Yahweh sits enthroned over the cataclysm’, the storm we have just read about. (The writer sees all natural phenomena as under God’s control and is using a massive storm and cataclysm as a picture of Jahweh’s great power. If the word does mean flood he may well have had Noah’s flood in mind). In the New Testament and in the Septuagint mabbul is ‘translated’ as kataklysmos (Mat 24:38-39; Luk 17:27; 2Pe 2:5). It therefore can be taken with some confidence as meaning in this context a ‘cataclysmic flood’ with the emphasis on the cataclysm.
The basis of the account consistently throughout is that man will be destroyed because of his extreme sinfulness (Gen 6:5-7; Gen 6:11-13; Gen 7:4; Gen 7:21-23; Gen 8:21). This contrasts strongly with Mesopotamian flood myths where the innocent admittedly die with the guilty, and the flood is the consequence of the anger of gods over some particular thing which annoys them.
How Extensive Was the Flood?
The question must again be raised as to what the writer is describing. There is no question but that it is a huge flood of a type never known before or since, but how far did it in fact reach?
In Hebrew the word translated ‘earth’ (eretz) even more often means ‘land’. This latter fact derived from the fact that ‘the earth’ (our world) as compared with the heavens (Gen 1:1), became ‘the earth’ (dry land) as opposed to the sea (Gen 1:10), became ‘the earth’ (their land) on which men lived (Gen 12:1). It is thus quite in accordance with the Hebrew that what is described in this passage occurred in just one part of what we would call the earth, occurring in ‘Noah’s earth’ where Noah was living with his family.
This is not just a matter of choosing between two alternative translations. The reason eretz could be so used was because of how the ancients saw things and applied language to them. To them there was their known ‘earth’, their land, and then their land with the surrounding peoples, and then the rather hazy world on the fringes and then beyond that who knew what? Thus to them ‘the earth’ could mean different things in different contexts.
Even in its wider meaning it meant what was indeed a reasonably large area, and yet from our point of view would be seen as a fairly localised area, and ‘the whole earth’ to them was what to us would still be limited horizons. We can compare Gen 41:57 where ‘the whole earth’ come to Egypt to buy food and 1Ki 10:24 where ‘the whole earth’ come to hear the wisdom of Solomon. Compare also how the Roman world and its fringes were ‘the world’ in the New Testament (Luk 2:1; Act 24:5; Rom 1:8; Col 1:6).
Thus there are three possible answers to the question as to how far the flood stretched, looking at it from the writer’s point of view.
1). That all mankind was involved and that the Flood was global. However, it could not strictly mean this to the writer, or to Noah, for both were unaware of such a concept. All they could think of was ‘the world’ according to their conception of it. What the writer could have meant was ‘all that there is’. But was he not rather concerned with the world of man?
2). That all mankind was involved, but that they were still living within a certain limited area and were therefore all destroyed in a huge flood, which was not, however, global, as it would not need to involve lands which were uninhabited.
The fact of the worldwide prevalence of Flood myths might be seen as supporting one of these two views. So also might the argument that had the area been too limited Noah could have been instructed to move with his family outside the area, however large. Against this latter, however, it could be argued that God was seen as having a lesson to teach to future generations, and that He had in view the preservation of animal life as part of Noah’s environment.
3). That it was only mankind in the large area affected by the demonic activity (Noah’s ‘earth’ or ‘world’) that were to be destroyed, and that the Flood was therefore vast, but not necessarily destroying those of mankind unaffected by the situation described.
What cannot be avoided is the idea that the Flood was huge beyond anything known since. It was remembered in Mesopotamia, an area which had known great floods, as ‘the Flood’which divided all that came before it from all that followed (see, for example, the Sumerian king lists) . They too had a memory of how their king Zius-udra survived the Flood by entering a boat and living through it, although in his case others, apart from his family, were seen as surviving with him in the boat. Alternative suggestions offered have been the consequences of the ice age ceasing, raising water levels and causing huge floods, or the falling of a huge asteroid into the sea.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Depravity of Mankind After the Scriptures show us that God is preserving a righteous seed in each generation (Gen 5:1-32) in order to preserve the coming of the promised “seed of woman” (Gen 3:15), we are then shown how the rest of mankind as a whole grows exceeding wicked until God repents that He made man in His divine plan of creation.
The Interpretation of the Phrase “Sons of God” – Gen 6:1-4 gives us the story of how the sons of God taking the daughters of man and producing giants upon the earth. There are a number of interpretations as to the meaning of the phrase “sons of God.” Some scholars believe that this phrase refers to angels who came down and married among the human race. Others suggest that the phrase “sons of God” simply refers to righteous men who took as their wives the daughters of wicked men.
1. First View: Angelic Beings Marry the Daughters of Men – This passage of Scripture tells us about one of the most unusual events to take place during the history of mankind, that of angelic beings marrying humans and producing a race of giants. The Book of Jubilees discusses this event and tells us that these wicked angels were taken by God and bound in the depths of the earth until the Day of Judgment.
“And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants. And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth – all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually. And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes. He said that He would destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which He had created. But Noah found grace before the eyes of the Lord. And against the angels whom He had sent upon the earth, He was exceedingly wroth, and He gave commandment to root them out of all their dominion, and He bade us to bind them in the depths of the earth, and behold they are bound in the midst of them, and are (kept) separate. And against their sons went forth a command from before His face that they should be smitten with the sword, and be removed from under heaven. And He said ‘My spirit shall not always abide on man; for they also are flesh and their days shall be one hundred and twenty years’. And He sent His sword into their midst that each should slay his neighbour, and they began to slay each other till they all fell by the sword and were destroyed from the earth. And their fathers were witnesses (of their destruction), and after this they were bound in the depths of the earth for ever, until the day of the great condemnation , when judgment is executed on all those who have corrupted their ways and their works before the Lord.” ( The Book of Jubilees 5.1-11)
If we look for support of this teaching, we can find it in 2Pe 2:4 and Jud 1:6. These verses tell us about a group of angels who are presently chained in darkness in Hell, or Tartaros, or the bottomless pit, and can no longer move about on earth.
2Pe 2:4, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”
Jud 1:6, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
These two verses indicate that these angels that are now kept in everlasting chains in darkness are not the group of angels that fell with Satan from heaven. Otherwise, there would not be so many demons that are presently moving about on earth today. Thus, the most logical conclusion is to understand that these angels are those referred to in Gen 6:1-7. It is interesting to note that this verse in 2Pe 2:4 is immediately followed by a comment on the judgment of the world during the time of Noah, which falls within the context of Genesis 6.
2Pe 2:5, “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”
This is because in The Book of Jubilee the destruction of the world by a flood and the casting down of these wicked angels were a part of the same event of judgment from God. With all of this supporting evidence I support this first view.
2. Second View: Righteous Men taking Unrighteous Women in Marriage However, some scholars do not believe that it is possible for angels to procreate with the human race using the logic that angels are sexless. They suggest that the phrase “sons of God” simply refers to righteous men who took as their wives the daughters of wicked men and produced giants upon the earth. However, there is little if any biblical and extra-biblical support for this view. It seems to come from those who find it hard to believe that angels would actually mate with women.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 Gen 6:2
Job 1:6,”Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”
Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”
Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
In contrast, the phrase “sons of men” can be found in Hebrew poetry in reference to earthly men. Note the use of the term “son of men” in Psa 4:2; Psa 31:19; Psa 33:13; Psa 57:4; Psa 58:1; Psa 145:2, Pro 8:4; Pro 8:31, Ecc 1:13; Ecc 2:3; Ecc 2:8; Ecc 3:10; Ecc 3:18-19; Ecc 8:11; Ecc 9:3; Ecc 9:12, Isa 52:14, Jer 32:19, Dan 5:21, Dan 10:16, Joe 1:12, Mic 5:7. Since this phrase is used primarily in the Hebrew books of poetry, it appears to be a poetic term, since there was a Hebrew word for angel ( ) (H4397) that was used 214 times in the Old Testament. Its poetic nature becomes even more evident when the phrase is contrasted with “the daughters of men” and “sons of men.”
Note “man….son of man” in Psa 8:4, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?”
Note also: Hos 1:10, “Ye are the sons of the living God.” This is a reference to the church age and its future. Thus, in the New Testament, the phrase, “we are sons of God” is used. So:
Rom 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”
The ancient Jewish The Book of Jubilees, written a few centuries before Christ, describes these “sons of God” as angels who had come down to the sons of men in order to teach them in the ways of righteousness. During this time some of them defiled themselves with the daughters of men.
“And in the second week of the tenth jubilee [449-55 A.M.] Mahalalel took unto him to wife Dinah, the daughter of Barakiel the daughter of his father’s brother, and she bare him a son in the third week in the sixth year, [461 A.M.] and he called his name Jared, for in his days the angels of the Lord descended on the earth, those who are named the Watchers, that they should instruct the children of men, and that they should do judgment and uprightness on the earth ..And in the twelfth jubilee, [582-88] in the seventh week thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Edna, the daughter of Danel, the daughter of his father’s brother, and in the sixth year in this week [587 A.M.] she bare him a son and he called his name Methuselah. And he was moreover with the angels of God these six jubilees of years, and they showed him everything which is on earth and in the heavens, the rule of the sun, and he wrote down everything. And he testified to the Watchers, who had sinned with the daughters of men; for these had begun to unite themselves, so as to be defiled, with the daughters of men , and Enoch testified against (them) all.” ( The Book of Jubilees 4.15-23)
In conclusion, I believe the phrase “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 is a reference to angelic creatures of God, while the phrase “sons of man” refers to earthly humans.
Gen 6:2 Comments – The phrase “sons of God” implies that there are no female angels in heaven, only males. Many people who have had visions of heaven and of angels testify of only seeing male angels. Apparently, during this time in history, some of these male angels because intrigued with the daughters of man and began to defile themselves with them.
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Gen 6:3
Comments – Gesenius translates the phrase in Gen 6:3 as “My spirit, i.e., My superior and divine nature, shall not be always humbled in men,” i.e., “shall not dwell in a mortal body descending from heaven and having to do with earth.” (see H1779)
In a sense, God will not strive, or put up with, a bunch of sin for long without doing something about it.
Scripture References – Note a similar verse in Jer 32:31.
Jer 32:31, “For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,”
Gen 6:3 “his days shall be an hundred and twenty years” Comments – Some scholars suggest that this period of one hundred and twenty years was not a reference to man’s shortened lifespan, but rather a reference to the time before the coming of the Flood. This interpretation is why some preachers say that Noah preached righteousness for one hundred years before the Flood.
Gen 6:3 Comments – In the Garden of Eden mankind was immortal. He was untainted with sin and the characteristics of the earth were perfected for his immortality. After the fall, man’s lifespan was reduced to approximately one thousand (1,000) years. Man was no longer clothed with the glory of God and was now subject to death and decay as was the earth. Thus, the characteristics of the earth were slightly altered along with the shortening of man’s lifespan. The second time God reduced man’s lifespan is found in Gen 6:3 during the time of the Flood, where reduced man’s lifespan drastically down to one hundred twenty (120) years. God did this by altering the characteristics of the earth through the Flood. In other words, our mortal bodies are not capable of living longer than this under the current conditions on earth. Therefore, today we live within the same characteristics of the earth and within the same bounds of a one-hundred-twenty-year lifespan.
Five hundred years after Noah, Moses refers to man living seventy to eighty years in Psa 90:10 Moses. We must not think of this as a divine decree that reduced mankind’s lifespan, but rather an observation of the average age of man’s life. For even today, there are a few people who live up to one hundred twenty (120) years, while most of us live only to seventy to eighty years, just as Moses described. We can make this evaluation because each time God shortened man’s lifespan, He altered the characteristics of the earth. But from the time of Noah to Moses no alterations were made.
Psa 90:10, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten ; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years , yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”
We know that God will one day restore man’s lifespan back to its original immortality. Again, this event will coincide with the creation of a new heaven and earth. Some scholars suggest that man’s thousand-year lifespan will be restored during the Millennial Reign of Christ, but I have yet to find how this change will coincide with the alterations of the earth.
Gen 6:3 Comments – Gen 5:1-32 gives us the genealogy of Adam, in which are listed men who lived to be almost 1,000 years old. It is the most outstanding chapter in the Bible of man’s longevity. But although mankind lived a thousand years, he was still mortal, or fleshly, and subject to death as God promised Adam before he sinned. Man was able to live so long in chapter 5 because these were men of righteousness and sin did not have a deep root in Adam and his early descendants, but as sin increased in man, his life was shortened. Because of the growth of sin during this time period from Adam to Noah God cut man’s years back to 120 years. The reason is that God was no longer willing to endure sin in a man’s life for such a long period of time. In contrast, there were several men, such as Enoch and Elijah, who walked in God’s presence so closely that God took them to heaven before their death. Note:
Pro 10:27, “The fear of the LORD prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened .”
There is eternal life with God, and in His presence is life, the very life that raised Jesus from the dead, and there is no death in His presence. Note:
Joh 11:25, “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:”
Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Gen 6:4
Num 13:33, “And there we saw the giants , the sons of Anak, which come of the giants : and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
Gen 6:4 Comments – E. W. Bullinger says that these giants existed after the Flood because there are references to giants after the time of Noah. He asks how this could be if they were all destroyed by the Flood, since it was just this perverted event that brought upon man the destruction of the earth. He finds the answer in Gen 6:4 in the phrase “and also after that.” [121] The Scriptures are telling us that these giants walked the earth during the time of Noah and “afterwards,” or after the Flood. Evidently, these angelic “sons of God” came back down to earth sometime after the Flood and again came in unto the daughters of men. We know that this took place before the time of Abraham since the Rephaim, or giants, are found among the peoples who were defeated by the king of Elam (Genesis 14). The context of the Old Testament suggests that this time it was not in such a great measure of wickedness.
[121] E. W. Bullinger, Appendix 23: “The Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 , 4 , in The Companion Bible Being The Authorized Version of 1611 With The Structures And Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive And With 198 Appendixes (London: Oxford University Press, c1909-22), 26-7.
We see similar giants mentioned again in Num 13:33 when the children of Israel spied out the land of the Canaanites and spoke of the children of Anak.
Num 13:33, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
Deu 9:2, “A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!”
The Scriptures give us the names of three of the children of Anak who were defeated by Caleb.
Num 13:22, “And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)”
Jos 15:14, “And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.”
We find a reference to other descendants of these giants, called the Emims and the Zamzummims, in Deuteronomy. Moses records for us that the sons of Esau, the Ammonites, destroyed them before possessing their land.
Deu 2:10-11, “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.”
Deu 2:20-21, “(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead:”
In addition, we find eighteen references to the Rephaim, or giants, in the Old Testament, of whom were born Goliath the Gittite and his brothers. These giants are called “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” in Gen 6:4. This is the way the Philistines viewed Goliath and his brothers in battle. Finally, we find such creatures in Greek and Roman mythology.
God sent the sword of the Israelites into the land of Canaan this time as His form of divine judgment, but it took several hundred years before a man like David and his fighting men were able to wipe out this race of creatures.
Within the context of this discussion, we may have found insight into Paul’s comment to the Corinthian church when he said, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (1Co 11:10) In other words, we must ask the question if it is possible for such angels to be attracted to the daughters of men today.
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:5
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 Gen 6:8 Gen 6:8
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Ten Genealogies (Calling) – The Genealogies of Righteous Men and their Divine Callings (To Be Fruitful and Multiply) – The ten genealogies found within the book of Genesis are structured in a way that traces the seed of righteousness from Adam to Noah to Shem to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob and the seventy souls that followed him down into Egypt. The book of Genesis closes with the story of the preservation of these seventy souls, leading us into the book of Exodus where we see the creation of the nation of Israel while in Egyptian bondage, which nation of righteousness God will use to be a witness to all nations on earth in His plan of redemption. Thus, we see how the book of Genesis concludes with the origin of the nation of Israel while its first eleven chapters reveal that the God of Israel is in fact that God of all nations and all creation.
The genealogies of the six righteous men in Genesis (Adam, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) are the emphasis in this first book of the Old Testament, with each of their narrative stories opening with a divine commission from God to these men, and closing with the fulfillment of prophetic words concerning the divine commissions. This structure suggests that the author of the book of Genesis wrote under the office of the prophet in that a prophecy is given and fulfilled within each of the genealogies of these six primary patriarchs. Furthermore, all the books of the Old Testament were written by men of God who moved in the office of the prophet, which includes the book of Genesis. We find a reference to the fulfillment of these divine commissions by the patriarchs in Heb 11:1-40. The underlying theme of the Holy Scriptures is God’s plan of redemption for mankind. Thus, the book of Genesis places emphasis upon these men of righteousness because of the role that they play in this divine plan as they fulfilled their divine commissions. This explains why the genealogies of Ishmael (Gen 25:12-18) and of Esau (Gen 36:1-43) are relatively brief, because God does not discuss the destinies of these two men in the book of Genesis. These two men were not men of righteousness, for they missed their destinies because of sin. Ishmael persecuted Isaac and Esau sold his birthright. However, it helps us to understand that God has blessed Ishmael and Esau because of Abraham although the seed of the Messiah and our redemption does not pass through their lineage. Prophecies were given to Ishmael and Esau by their fathers, and their genealogies testify to the fulfillment of these prophecies. There were six righteous men did fulfill their destinies in order to preserve a righteous seed so that God could create a righteous nation from the fruit of their loins. Illustration As a young schoolchild learning to read, I would check out biographies of famous men from the library, take them home and read them as a part of class assignments. The lives of these men stirred me up and placed a desire within me to accomplish something great for mankind as did these men. In like manner, the patriarchs of the genealogies in Genesis are designed to stir up our faith in God and encourage us to walk in their footsteps in obedience to God.
The first five genealogies in the book of Genesis bring redemptive history to the place of identifying seventy nations listed in the Table of Nations. The next five genealogies focus upon the origin of the nation of Israel and its patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
There is much more history and events that took place surrounding these individuals emphasized in the book of Genesis, which can be found in other ancient Jewish writings, such as The Book of Jubilees. However, the Holy Scriptures and the book of Genesis focus upon the particular events that shaped God’s plan of redemption through the procreation of men of righteousness. Thus, it was unnecessary to include many of these historical events that were irrelevant to God’s plan of redemption.
In addition, if we see that the ten genealogies contained within the book of Genesis show to us the seed of righteousness that God has preserved in order to fulfill His promise that the “seed of woman” would bruise the serpent’s head in Gen 3:15, then we must understand that each of these men of righteousness had a particular calling, destiny, and purpose for their lives. We can find within each of these genealogies the destiny of each of these men of God, for each one of them fulfilled their destiny. These individual destinies are mentioned at the beginning of each of their genealogies.
It is important for us to search these passages of Scripture and learn how each of these men fulfilled their destiny in order that we can better understand that God has a destiny and a purpose for each of His children as He continues to work out His divine plan of redemption among the children of men. This means that He has a destiny for you and me. Thus, these stories will show us how other men fulfilled their destinies and help us learn how to fulfill our destiny. The fact that there are ten callings in the book of Genesis, and since the number “10” represents the concept of countless, many, or numerous, we should understand that God calls out men in each subsequent generation until God’s plan of redemption is complete.
We can even examine the meanings of each of their names in order to determine their destiny, which was determined for them from a child. Adam’s name means “ruddy, i.e. a human being” ( Strong), for it was his destiny to begin the human race. Noah’s name means, “rest” ( Strong). His destiny was to build the ark and save a remnant of mankind so that God could restore peace and rest to the fallen human race. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham, meaning, “father of a multitude” ( Strong), because his destiny was to live in the land of Canaan and believe God for a son of promise so that his seed would become fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth. Isaac’s name means, “laughter” ( Strong) because he was the child of promise. His destiny was to father two nations, believing that the elder would serve the younger. Isaac overcame the obstacles that hindered the possession of the land, such as barrenness and the threat of his enemies in order to father two nations, Israel and Esau. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, which means “he will rule as God” ( Strong), because of his ability to prevail over his brother Esau and receive his father’s blessings, and because he prevailed over the angel in order to preserve his posterity, which was the procreation of twelve sons who later multiplied into the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus, his ability to prevail against all odds and father twelve righteous seeds earned him his name as one who prevailed with God’s plan of being fruitful and multiplying seeds of righteousness.
In order for God’s plan to be fulfilled in each of the lives of these patriarchs, they were commanded to be fruitful and multiply. It was God’s plan that the fruit of each man was to be a godly seed, a seed of righteousness. It was because of the Fall that unrighteous seed was produced. This ungodly offspring was not then nor is it today God’s plan for mankind.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Generation of the Heavens and the Earth Gen 2:4 to Gen 4:26
a) The Creation of Man Gen 2:4-25
b) The Fall Gen 3:1-24
c) Cain and Abel Gen 4:1-26
2. The Generation of Adam Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8
3. The Generation of Noah Gen 6:9 to Gen 9:29
4. The Generation of the Sons of Noah Gen 10:1 to Gen 11:9
5. The Generation of Shem Gen 11:10-26
6. The Generation of Terah (& Abraham) Gen 11:27 to Gen 25:11
7. The Generation Ishmael Gen 25:12-18
8. The Generation of Isaac Gen 25:19 to Gen 35:29
9. The Generation of Esau Gen 36:1-43
10. The Generation of Jacob Gen 37:1 to Gen 50:26
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Genealogy of Adam The second genealogy found in the book of Genesis is entitled “The Genealogy of Adam” (Gen 5:1 to Gen 6:8), which emphasizes the fact that God preserved for Himself a righteous seed in Noah (Gen 5:1-32) while mankind in general became exceedingly wicked until God repented that He had made man as a part of His creation (Gen 6:1-8). Heb 11:5-6 reveals the central message of this genealogy that stirs our faith in God when it describes Enoch’s translation into Heaven and his acceptance by God. Adam’s destiny, whose name simply means “mankind,” was to begin the multiplication of mankind, which divine commission is seen in Gen 5:2, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Of course, God’s plan was for Adam to produce a godly offspring. Thus, we see in the genealogy of Adam this seed of righteous men whom he fathered (Gen 5:1-32), in which the author of Hebrews particularly Enoch as a fulfillment of this divine commission, who walked with God (Heb 11:5), and which list in Genesis closes with Noah, another blessed man (Gen 5:29-32). Adam’s genealogy also reveals that many other people were born during this time-period who became exceedingly wicked (Gen 6:1-8), particularly from the seed of Cain; however, this list emphasizes the fulfillment of God’s divine commission to bless Adam and his offspring, who were to father righteous offspring. Thus, the fulfillment of Adam’s genealogy is found in the man Noah, whom God would use to repopulate the earth after destroying all of mankind for their wickedness. In a sense, we have to look far down the generations to see how Adam fulfilled his destiny in the man Noah, so that Adam succeeded in populating the earth with a righteous seed.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Descendants of Adam Gen 5:1-32
2. The Depravity of Mankind Gen 6:1-8
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Wickedness of Men
v. 1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, v. 2. that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. v. 3. And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. v. 4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Gen 6:1, Gen 6:2
And it came to pass. Literally, it was; not in immediate sequence to the preceding chapter, but at some earlier point in the antediluvian period; perhaps about the time of Enoch (corresponding to that of Lamech the Cainite), if not in the days of Enos. Havernick joins the passage with Gen 4:26. When menha’adham, i.e. the human race in general, and not the posterity of Cain in particular (Ainsworth, Rosenmller, Bush)began to multiplyin virtue of the Divine blessing (Gen 1:28)on (or over) the face of the earth. “Alluding to the population spreading itself out as well as increasing” (Bonar). And daughters were born unto them. Not referring to any special increase of the female sex (Lange), but simply indicating the quarter whence the danger to the pious Sethites rose: “who became snares to the race of Seth” (Wordsworth). That the sons of God. Bene-ha Elohim.
1. Not young men of the upper ranks, as distinguished from maidens of humble birth (Onk; Jon; Sym; Aben Ezra); an opinion which “may now be regarded as exploded” (Lange).
2. Still less the angels; for
(1) they are either good angels, in which case they might be rightly styled sons of God (Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Dan 3:25), though it is doubtful if this expression does not denote their official rather than natural relationship to God, but it is certain they would not be guilty of the sin here referred to; or they are bad angels, in which ease they might readily enough commit the sin, if it were possible, but certainly they would not be called “the sons of God.”
(2) The statement of Jude (Jud 1:6, Jud 1:7), though seemingly in favor of this interpretation, does not necessarily require it; since
() it is uncertain Whether the phrase ” “ refers to the angels or to ” ,” in which case the antecedent of will not be the of Jud 1:6, but of Jud 1:7;
() if even it refers to the angels it does not follow that the parallel between the cities and the angels consisted in the “going after strange flesh,” and not rather in the fact that both departed from God, “the sin of the apostate angels being in God’s view a sin of like kind spiritually with Sodom’s going away from God’s order of nature after strange flesh” (Fausset);
() again, granting that Jude’s language describes the sin of the angels as one of carnal fornication with the daughters of men, the sin of which the sons of Elohim are represented as guilty is not , but the forming of unhallowed matrimonial alliances. Hence
(3) the assertion of our Lord in Luk 20:35 is inconsistent with the hypothesis that by the sons of God are meant the angels; and
(4) consistent exegesis requires that only extreme urgency, in fact absolute necessity (neither of which can be alleged here), should cause the sons of God to be looked for elsewhere than among the members of the human race.
3. The third interpretation, therefore, which regards the sons of God as the pious Sethites, though not without its difficulties, has the most to recommend it.
(1) It is natural, and not monstrous.
(2) It is Scriptural, and not mythical (cf. Num 25:1-18.; Jdg 3:1-31.; 1Ki 11:1-43; 1Ki 16:1-34.; Rev 2:1-29; for sins of a similar description).
(3) It accords with the designation subsequently given to the pious followers of God (cf. Deu 14:1; Deu 32:5; Psa 73:15; Pro 14:26; Luk 3:38; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26).
(4) It has a historical basis in the fact that Seth was regarded by his mother as a son from God (Gen 4:25), and in the circumstance that already the Sethites had begun to call themselves by the name of Jehovah (Gen 4:26). Dathius translates, “qui de nomine Dei vocabantur.”
(5) It is sufficient as an hypothesis, and therefore is entitled to the preference. Saw the daughters of men (not of the Cainitic race exclusively, but of men generally) that they were fair, and had regard to this alone in contracting marriages. “Instead of looking at the spiritual kinsmanship, they had an eye only to the pleasure of sense” (Lange). “What the historian condemns is not that regard was had to beauty, but that mera libido regnaverit in the choice of wives” (Calvin). And they took them wives. Lakachisha,“ a standing expression throughout the Old Testament for the marriage relationship established by God at the creation, is never applied to , or the simple act of physical connection, which is sufficient of itself to exclude any reference to angels” (Keil; cf. Gen 4:19; Gen 12:19; Gen 19:14; Exo 6:25; 1Sa 25:43). Of all whom they chose. The emphasis on (of all) signifies that, guided by a love of merely sensual attractions, they did not confine themselves to the beautiful daughters of the Sethite race, but selected their brides from the fair women of the Cainites, and perhaps with a preference for these. The opinion that they selected “both virgins and wives, they cared, not, whom,” and “took them by violence (Willet), is not warranted by the language of the historian. The sons of God were neither the Nephilim nor the Gibborim afterwards described, but the parents of the latter. The evil indicated is simply that of promiscuous marriages without regard to spiritual character.
Gen 6:3
And the LordJehovah; not because due to the Jehovist (Tuch, Bleek, Colenso), but because the sin above specified was a direct violation of the footing of grace on which the Sethites stoodsaid,to himself, i.e. purposed,My spiritneither “ira, seu rigida Dei justitia” (Venema), nor “the Divine spirit of life bestowed upon man, the principle of physical and ethical, natural and spiritual life” (Keil); but the Holy Ghost, the Ruach Elohim of Gen 1:2shall not always strive. London:
1. Shall not dwell (LXX; ; Vulgate, non permanebit; Syriac, Onkelos).
2. Shall not be humbled, i.e. by dwelling in men (Gesenius, Tuch).
3. More probably, shall not rule (De Wette, Delitzsch, Kalisch, Furst), or shall not judge ( ), as the consequence of ruling (Symmachus, Rosenmller, Keil), or shall not contend in judgment (arguere, reprehendere; cf. Ecc 6:10), i.e. strive with a man by moral force (Calvin, Michaelis, Dathe, ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ Murphy, Bush). With man, for that he alsobeshaggam. Either be, shaggam, inf. of shagag, to wander, with pron. surf. = “in their wandering” (Gesenius, Tuch, Keil)the meaning being that men by their straying had proved themselves to be flesh, though a plural suffix with a singular pronoun following is inadmissible in Hebrew (Kalisch); or be, sh (contracted from asher), and gam (also) = quoniam. Cf. Jdg 5:7; Jdg 6:17; So Jdg 1:7 (A.V.). Though an Aramaic particle, “it must never be forgotten that Aramaisms are to be expected either in the most modern or in the most ancient portions of Scripture“ (‘Speaker’s Commentary)is flesh, not “transitory beings” (Gesenius, Rosenmller, Tuch), or corporeal beings (Kalisch), but sinful beings; bashar being already employed in its ethical signification, like in the New Testament, to denote “man’s materiality as rendered ungodly by sin” (Keil). “The doctrine of the carnal mind (Rom 8:1-39.) is merely the outgrowth, of the thought expressed in this passage ‘ (Murphy). Yet his daysnot the individual’s (Kalisch), which were not immediately curtailed to the limit mentioned, and, even after the Flood, extended far beyond it (vide Gen 11:1-32.); but the races, which were only to be prolonged in gracious respite (Calvin)shall be an hundred and twenty years. Tuch, Colenso, and others, supposing this to have been said by God in Noah’s 500th year, find a respite only of 100 years, instead of 120; but the historian does not assert that it was then God either formed or announced this determination.
Gen 6:4
There were. Not became, or arose, as if the giants were the fruit of the previously-mentioned misalliances; but already existed contemporaneously with the sons of God (cf. Keil, Havernick, and Lange). Giants. Nephilim, from naphal, to fall; hence supposed to describe the offspring of the daughters of men and the fallen angels (Hoffman, Delitzsch). The LXX, translate by ; whence the “giants” of the A.V. and Vulgate, which Luther rejects as fabulous; but Kalisch, on the strength of Num 13:33, accepts as the certain import of the term. More probable is the interpretation which understands them as men of violence, roving, lawless gallants, “who fall on others;” robbers, or tyrants (Aquila, Rosenmller, Gesenius, Luther, Calvin, Kurtz, Keil,. Murphy, ‘Speaker’s Commentary’). That they were “monsters, prodigies” (Tueh, Knobel), may be rejected, though it is not unlikely they were men of large physical stature, like the Anakim, Rephaim, and others (cf. Num 13:33). In the earth. Not merely on it, but largely occupying the populated region. In those days. Previously referred to, i.e. of the mixed marriages. And alsoi.e. in addition to these nephilimafter that,i.e. after their up-risingwhen the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men. Ha’gibborim, literally, the strong, impetuous, heroes (cf. Gen 10:8). “They were probably more refined in manners and exalted in thought than their predecessors of pure Cainite descent” (Murphy). Which were of old. Not “of the world,” as a note of character, taking olam as equivalent to but a note of time, the narrator reporting from his own standpoint. Men of renown. Literally, men of the name; “the first nobility of the world, honorable robbers, who boasted of their wickedness” (Calvin) or gallants, whose names were often in men’s mouths (Murphy). For contrary phrase, “men of no name,” see Job 30:8.
Gen 6:5
And God (Jehovah, which should have been rendered ‘the Lord’) sawindicative of the long-continued patience (Calvin) of the Deity, under whose immediate cognizance the great experiment of the primeval age of the world was wrought outthat the wickedness (ra’ath; from the root raa, to make a loud noise, to rage, hence to be wicked) of man (literally, of the Adam: this was the first aggravation of the wickedness which God beheld; it was the tumultuous rebellion of the being whom he had created in his own image) was great (it was no slight iniquity, but a wide-spread, firmly-rooted, and deeply-staining corruption, the second aggravation) in the earth. This was the third aggravation; it was in the world which he had made, and not only in it, but pervading it so “that integrity possessed no longer a single corner” (Calvin). And that every imaginationyetzer, a device, like pottery ware, from yatza, to fashion as a potter (Gen 2:7; Gen 8:19). Cf. yotzer, a potter, used of God (Psa 94:9, Psa 94:20). Hence the fashioned purpose () as distinguished from the thought out of which it springs”a distinction not generally or constantly recognized by the mental philosopher, though of essential importance in the theory of the mind” (Murphy)of the thoughtsmahshevoth; from hashal, to think, to meditate = ; cf. Heb 9:12 (T. Lewis)of his heartor, the heart, the seat of the affections and emotions of the mind. Cf. Jdg 16:15 (love); Pro 31:11 (confidence); Pro 5:12 (contempt); Psa 104:15 (joy). Here “the feeling, or deep mother heart, the state of soul, lying below all, and giving moral character to all (Lewis). Cf. the psychological division of Heb 4:12 was only evil continually. Literally, every day. “If this is not total depravity, how can language express it?” Though the phrase does not mean “from infancy,” yet “the general doctrine” (of man’s total and universal depravity) “is properly and consistently elicited hence” (Calvin).
Gen 6:6
And it repented the Lord. Yinnahem; from naham, to pant, to groan; Niph; to lament, to grieve bemuse of the misery of others, also because of one’s own actions; whence to repent (cf. German, rouen; English, rue: Gesenius); = “it grieved him at his heart.” “Verbum nostae pravitatae accommodatum” (Chrysostom); “non est perturbatio, sod judi-cium, quo irrogatur pinna;” and again, “poenitudo Dei est mutandorum immutabilis ratio“. “Deus est immutabilis; sed cum ii, quos eurat, mutantur, murat ipse res, prout ils expedit quos eurat“. “The repentance here ascribed to God does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding of him (Calvin). “The repentance of God does not presuppose any variableness in his nature or purposes” Keil). “A peculiarly strong anthropathic expression, which, however, presents the truth that God, in consistency with his immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man” (Lange). That he had made man on the earth. i.e. that he had created man at all, and in particular that he had settled him on the earth. And it grieved him at his heart. A touching indication that God did not hate man, and a clear proof that, though the Divine purpose is immutable, the Divine nature is not impassible.
Gen 6:7
And the Lord said,”Before weird (doom) there’s word: Northern Proverb” (Bonar)I will destroyliterally, blot or wipe out by washing (cf. Num 5:23; 2Ki 21:13; Pro 30:20; Isa 25:8). “The idea of destroying by washing away is peculiarly appropriate to the Deluge, and the word is chosen on account of its significance” (Quarry)man whom I have created from the face of the earth. An indirect refutation of the angel hypothesis (Keil, Lange). If the angels were the real authors of the moral corruption of the race, why are they not sentenced as the serpent was in Gen 3:14? Both man, and beast, and the creeping thing. Literally, from man unto beast, &c. The lower creatures were involved in the punishment of man neither because of any moral corruption which had entered into them, nor as sharing in the atonement for human sins (Knobel); but rather on the ground of man’s sovereignty over the animal world, and its dependence on him (Keil, Lange), and in exemplification of that great principle of Divine government by which the penal consequences of moral evil are allowed to extend beyond the immediate actor (cf. Rom 8:20). For it repenteth me that I have made them. Vide supra on Gen 3:6.
Gen 6:8
But Noah found grace. Hen; the same letters as in Noah, but reversed (cf. Gen 18:3; Gen 39:4; 1Ki 11:19). 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 4:1-25; Rom 5:1-21; Eph 2:1-22; Gal 2:1-21; the gratuitous favor of God to sinful men.
HOMILETICS
Gen 6:1-8
The days that were before the flood
(Mat 24:38).
I. SIN INCREASING.
1. Licentiousness raging. The special form it assumed was that of sensuous gratification, leading to a violation of the law of marriage. In the seventh age Lamech the Cainite became a polygamist. By and by the sons of God, captivated by the charms of beauty, cast aside the bonds of self-restraint, and took them wives of all whom they chose.
(1) They married with ungodly women,beautiful, perhaps talented and accomplished, like the Adahs, Naamahs, and Zillahs of the race of Cain, but unbelieving and ungodly,which, as the professing followers of Jehovah, they should not have done. Holy Scripture forbids the union of believers with unbelievers (2Co 6:14).
(2) They married to please their fancies, leaving altogether out of reckoning, as necessary qualifications in their partners, spiritual affinity, intellectual compatibility, and even general suitability, and fixing their eyes only on what charmed the senses, physical loveliness.
(3) They married as many wives as they desired. Lamech, the first polygamist, was satisfied with two; the degenerate sons of Seth, having yielded to self-indulgence, only limited their wives by the demands of their passion.
2. Violence prevailing. Those who begin by breaking the laws of God are not likely to end by keeping those of man. From the beginning a characteristic of the wicked line (witness Cain and Lamech), lawlessness at length passed over to the holy seed. What with the Nephilim. on the one hand (probably belonging to the line of Cain) and the Gibborim on the other (the offspring of the degenerate Sethites), the world was overrun with tyrants. Sheer brute force was the ruler, and the only code of morals was “Be strong.” Moral purity alone has a God-given right to occupy the supreme seat of influence and power upon the earth. After that, intellectual ability. Mere physical strength, colossal stature, immense bulk, were designed for subjection and subordination. The subversion of this Divinely-appointed order results in tyranny; and, of all tyrannies, that of strong, coarse, passion-driven animalism is the worst. And this was the condition of mankind in these antediluvian ages. And what was even a worse symptom of the times, the people loved to have it so. Those lawless robbers and tyrants and these reckless, roving gallants were men of name and fame, in everybody’s mouth, as the popular heroes of the day. As mere physical beauty was woman’s pathway to marriage, so was sheer brute force, displaying itself in feats of daring and of blood, man’s road to renown.
3. Corruption deepening. Most appalling is the picture sketched by the historian of the condition of the Adam whom God at first created in his own image, implying
(1) Complete extinction of the higher nature. Through persistence in the downward path of sin it had at length become lost, swallowed up, in the low, carnal portion of his being called the “flesh.”
(2) Complete supremacy of evilevil in the imaginations, evil in the thoughts, evil in the heart, nothing but evil; and that not temporarily, but always; nor in the case of one or two individuals merely, but in the case of all, with one solitary exception.
(3) Complete insensibility to Divine influences. Hence the withdrawal of God’s Spirit. There was no use for further striving to restrain or improve them; they were “past feeling” (Eph 4:19).
II. GOD REPENTNG.
1. A mysterious fact. “We do not gain much by attempting to explain philosophically such states or movements of the Divine mind. They are strictly ineffable. So the Scripture itself represents themIsa 4:1-6 :9” (Taylor Lewis). What is here asserted of the Divine thoughts is likewise true of the Divine emotions; like the Deity himself, they are past finding out.
2. A real fact. The language describes something real on the part of God. If it is figurative, then there must be something of which it is the figure; and that something is the Divine grief and repentance. These, however, are realities that belong to a realm which the human intellect cannot traverse. As of the Divine personality man’s personality is but an image or reflection, so of the Divine affections and emotions are man’s affections and emotions only shadows. Man repents when he changes his mind, or his attitude, or his actions. God repents when his thoughts are changed, when his feelings are turned, when his acts are reversed. But God is “of one mind, and who can turn him?” He is “without variableness and shadow of turning;” “the same yesterday, today, and for ever.” Hence we rather try to picture to ourselves the Divine penitence as expressive of the changed attitude which the immutable Deity maintains towards things that are opposite, such as holiness and sin.
3. An instructive fact, telling us
(1) that the Divine nature is not impassible;
(2) that sin is not the end of man’s creation; and
(3) that a sinful man is a disappointment to God.
4. An ominous fact. As thus explained, the grief and penitence of God describe the effect which human sin ever have upon the Divine nature. It fills him with heart-felt grief and pity. It excites all the fathomless ocean of sympathy for sinning men with which his infinite bosom is filled. But at the same time, and notwithstanding this, it moves him to inflict judicial retribution. “And the Lord said, I will destroy man.”
III. GRACE OPERATING.
1. In restraining sinners. It was impossible that God could leave men to rush headlong to their own destruction without interposing obstacles in their path. In the way of these apostates of the human race he erected quite a series of barriers to keep them back from perdition. He gave them
(1) a gospel of mercy in the promise of the woman’s seed;
(2) a ministry of mercy, raising up and maintaining a succession of pious men to preach the gospel, and warn them against the ways of sin;
(3) a Spirit of mercy to strive within them;
(4) a providence of mercy,
(a) measuring out to them a long term of years, yet
(b) solemnly reminding them of their mortality, and finally
(c) giving them a reprieve, even after they were sentenced to destruction.
2. In sarong believers.
(1) Accepting them as he accepted Noah;
(2) preserving them amid the general defection of the times, as he did Noah, who without Divine assistance must have been inevitably swept away in the general current of ungodliness;
(3) providing for their safety against the coming judgment. They were all removed by death before the flood came, and Noah was delivered by the ark.
Lessons:
1. The terrible degeneracy of human nature.
2. The danger of mixed marriages.
3. God may pity, but he must likewise punish, the evil-doer.
4. The day of grace has its limits.
5. If a soul will go to perdition, it must do so over many mercies.
6. God never leaves himself without a witness, even in the worst of times.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen 6:1-8
The work of sin.
The moral chaos out of which the new order is about to be evolved. We find these features in the corrupt state depicted.
I. ILL–ASSORTED MARRIAGES. The sons of Godi.e. the seed of the righteous, such men as the patriarchs described in Gen 5:1-32; men who walked with God, and were his prophetsfell away from their allegiance to the Divine order, and went after the daughters of the Cainites, The self-will and mere carnal affections are denoted by the expression “all whom they chose.”
II. VIOLENCE AND MILITARY AMBITION. The giants were the “nephilim,” those who assaulted and fell upon their neighbors. The increase of such men is distinctly traced to the corrupt alliances.
III. THE WITHDRAWAL by judgment of THE DIVINE SPIRIT from marl, by which may be meant not only the individual degeneracy which we see exemplified in such a case as Cain, driven out from the presence of the Lord, given up to a reprobate mind, and afterwards in Pharaoh; but the withdrawal of prophecy and such special spiritual communications as had been given by such men as Enoch.
IV. THE SHORTENING OF HUMAN LIFE. Since the higher moral influence of Christianity has been felt in society during the last three centuries, it is calculated that the average length of human life has been increased twofold. The anthropomorphism of these verses is in perfect accordance with the tone of the whole Book of Genesis, and is not in the least a perversion of truth. It is rather a revelation of truth, as anticipating the great central fact of revelation, God manifest in the flesh. But why is God said to have determined to destroy the face of the earth, the animal creation with the sinful man? Because the life of man involved that of the creatures round him. “The earth is filled with violence.” To a large extent the beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air participate in the disorder of the human race, being rendered unnaturally savage and degenerate in their condition by man’s disorderly ways. Moreover, any destruction which should sweep away a whole race of men must involve the lower creation. The defeat of a king is the defeat of his subjects. In all this corruption and misery there is yet, by the grace of God, one oasis of spiritual life, the family of Noah. He found grace not because he earned it, but because he kept what had been given him, both through his ancestors and by the work of the Spirit in his own heart.R.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
Gen 6:1-5
The demoralization of the race.
This was due to
I. THE LONG LIVES OF THE ANTEDILUVIANS. Long life, if helpful to the good, is much more injurious to the wicked. Giants in health and life are often giants in wickedness.
II. THE UNHOLY ALLIANCES OF THE SETHITES AND CAINITES. Nothing so demoralizing as marriage with an evil woman. Its bad effects are commonly transmitted to, and intensified in, posterity.
III. THE DEPRAVITY INDUCED BY THE FALL, which was universal in its extent, and gradually deepening in its intensity.
Lessons:
1. The inherent evil of our natures.
2. The curse clinging to ungodliness.
3. The true function of worldly sorrows and of frequent and early death.W.R.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Gen 6:3
Probation, approbation, and reprobation.
“And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,” &c. The life of man, whether longer or shorter, is a time during which the Spirit of God strives with him. It is at once in judgment and in mercy that the strife is not prolonged; for where there is continued opposition to the will of God there is continual laying up of judgment against the day of wrath. The allotted time of man upon the earth is sufficient for the required probation, clearly manifesting the direction of the will, the decided choice of the heart. Here is
I. THE GREAT MORAL FACT OF MAN‘S CONDITION IN HIS FLESHLY STATE. The striving of God’s Spirit with him.
1. In the order of the world and of human life.
2. In the revelation of truth and positive appeals of the Divine word.
3. In the constant nearness and influence of spiritual society.
4. In the working of conscience and the moral instincts generally.
II. THE DIVINE APPOINTMENT OF SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGE at once a righteous limitation and a gracious concentration. That which is unlimited is apt to be undervalued. Not always shall the Spirit strive.
1. Individually this is testified. A heart which knows not the day of its visitation becomes hardened.
2. In the history of spiritual work in communities. Times of refreshing generally followed by withdrawments of power. The limit of life itself is before us all. Not always can we hear the voice and see the open door.
III. THE NATURAL AND THE SPIRITUAL ARE INTIMATELY RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER IN THE LIFE OF MAN. He who decreed the length of days to his creature did also strive with the evil of his fallen nature that he might cast it out. The hundred and twenty years are seldom reached; but is it not because the evil is so obstinately retained? Those whose spirit is most in fellowship with the Spirit of God are least weighed down with the burden of the flesh, are strongest to resist the wearing, wasting influence of the world.
IV. THE STRIVING OF GOD‘S SPIRIT WITH US MAY CEASE. What follows? To fall on the stone is to be broken, to be under it is to be crushed. The alternative is before every human lifeto be dealt with as with God or against him. “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!” The progressive revelations of the Bible point to the winding up of all earthly history. Not always strife. Be ye reconciled to God.R.
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
Gen 6:3
The striving of the Spirit
implies
I. THE DOCTRINE OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
II. THE GRANTING OF GOD‘S SPIRIT TO OUR FALLEN WORLD.
III. That God’s Spirit is OPPOSED BY MAN.
IV. That the effort of God’s Spirit for man’s salvation, even though not successful, COMES TO AN END.
V. That the striving of God’s Spirit comes to an end not because God’s willingness to help comes to an end, but because HUMAN NATURE SINKS BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF HELP.
VI. That it belongs to God as Sovereign to FIX THE DAY OF GRACE.
Learn
1. The richness of Divine mercy.
2. The possibility of falling away beyond the hope of repentance.
3. The fact that our day of grace is limited.
4. The certainty that, however short, the day of grace which we enjoy is available for salvation.W.R.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Gen 6:1-2. Men begandaughterssons of God, &c An evident distinction has been made in sacred scripture between the children of God and the children of men; between those who were the true servants of Jehovah, and those who were the slaves of their own evil desires and passions. The former, by intermarrying with the daughters of those who had apostatized from God or never known him, were drawn themselves into the same degeneracy; whence that universal depravation succeeded, which brought on the deluge. Intermarriages of believers with unbelievers have always been looked upon in the scriptures as peculiarly pernicious. See Gen 24:3; Gen 26:35; Gen 27:46. Neh 13:23; Neh 13:31. Mal 2:11. 1Co 7:39. 2Co 6:14; 2Co 6:18. It is observed by the authors of the Universal History, that “if we consider the length of men’s lives, and that they then began to beget children as early, and left off as late, in proportion as they do now, we shall find that the number of mankind before the deluge might easily be above one hundred thousand millions; that is, twenty times as many as our present earth has in all probability now upon it, or can be supposed capable of maintaining in its present constitution.”
Took them wives of all which they chose A regard to nothing but their external beauty. “Not only their lust,” says Mr. Locke, “but their impiety and irreligion are here taxed, who, revolting from the faith and manners of their forefathers, preferred beauty of body to beauty of mind.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FOURTH SECTION
The Universal Corruption in consequence of the mingling of the two lines.The anomism (or enormity) of sins before the flood.Predominant unbelief.Titanic pride.After the flood prevailing superstition
Gen 6:1-8
1And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men [looked upon them] that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose 3[after their sensual choice]. And the Lord said, my spirit1 shall not always strive2 with man, for that Hebrews 3 also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants4 in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown. 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented5 the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved6 him at his heart. 7And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and 8the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
PRELIMINARY QUESTION, EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL, RESPECTING THE SONS OF GOD7
The question, what kind of beings are we to understand by the Sons of God, has been answered in different ways from the earliest times, and has lately, again, given occasion to lively theological discussions. We give here, in the first place, the statement of Kurtz, who has engaged in the question with peculiar earnestness (History of the Old Covenant, i. p. 30, 3d ed., 1864, and in a long Appendix to vol. i., under the title: Die Ehen der Shne Gottes mit den Tchtern der Menschen, Berlin, 1857). In respect to the Bne Elohim, we find three principal views: 1. they are filii magnatum puellas plebeias rapientes; 2. they are angels; 3. they are the pious, that is, the Sethites, in contrast with whom the daughters of men denote Cainitish women. The first view is found in the Samaritan, Jonathan (Targum), Onkelos (Targum), Symmachus, Aben Ezra, Rashi, Varenius, &c., and may now be regarded as exploded. The second view is most strongly represented in the old synagogue and church. It would seem to have its ground in the Septuagint. At least the manuscripts vary between and . Very decidedly, however, it is presented (and mythically improved upon) in two old Apocryphal books, namely, the Book of Enoch, and the so-called Minor Genesis, of which Dillman in Ewalds Year Books has given a German translation derived from the Ethiopic. It is, moreover, recognized in the Epistle of Jude (Gen 6:6-7 ?) and in the Second Epistle of Peter (Gen 2:4-5 ?). It was also presented by Philo, Josephus, and most of the Rabbinical writers (Eisenmengers Judaism Revealed, i. p. 380), as well as by the oldest church fathers: Justin, Clemens Alex., Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Lactantius. Since then it fell gradually into disfavor; Chrysostom, Augustine, and Theodoret contended zealously against it; Philastrius denounced it as downright heresy, and our old church theologians turned from it almost with abhorrence. It found also in the synagogue vehement opposers Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai pronounced the ban against all who adhered to it. In more modern times it has been seized upon by all exegetes who regard the early history of Genesis as mythical, notwithstanding which a decided number of commentators who are believers in revelation have not allowed themselves to be deterred from deciding in its favor,for example, Kppen (The Bible a Work of Divine Wisdom, i. p. 104), Fr. von Meyer (Bltter fr hhere Wahrheit, xi. p. 61 ff.), Twesten (Dogmatics, ii. 1, p. 332), Nitzsch (System, p. 234 f.) Dreschler (Einheit der Genesis, p. 91), Hofmann (Prophecy and Fulfilment, i. p. 85, and Scripture Proof, i. p. 374 ff.), Baumgarten (Commentary on the Pentateuch, ad h. l.), Delitzsch (Comment. ad h. l.), Stier (Epistle of Jude, p. 42 ff.), Dietlein (Comment. on the Second Epistle of Peter, p. 149 ff.), Luther (Comment. on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, pp. 204, 341). The third view is found in Chrysostom, Cyril Alex, Theodoret, (on the special ground that Seth, on account of his piety, acquired the name , and that, therefore, his descendants were named ). It was held by almost all the later church theologians. In modern times it has been defended with special zeal by Hengstenberg (Contributions, ii. p. 328 ff.), Hvernik (Introduction, i. 2, p. 265), Dettinger (Remarks on the Section, Gen 4:1Gen 6:8, in the Tbingen Journal of Theology, 1835, No. 1), Keil (Luther. Periodical, 1851, ii. p. 239), and many others.
The preceding statement has been made complete by Kurtz in his Book (The Marriages of the Sons of God,) Berlin, 1857, p. 12; as likewise by Keil (p. 80) by the citation of the treatise of Hengstenberg (The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men,) in the Evangelical Church Gazette, 1858, No. 29, and No. 3537; in the exposition of Philippi (Church Doctrine of the Faith,) iii. p. 176 ff, and the controversial writings of Kurtz that have appeared against the treatises of Keil and Hengstenberg (The Marriages of the Sons of God with the Daughters of Men), Berlin 1857, and The Sons of God, in Gen 6:1-4, and the Sinning Angels, in 2Pe 2:4-5, and Jude, Gen 6:6-7. Mitau, 1858. Engelhardt also takes the side of Kurtz (Lutheran Periodical, 1856, p. 404). Delitzsch appears as the latest defender of the angel hypothesis of any considerable note (Comment. 3d Ed., 1860, p. 230 ff.). Its latest opponent of note since Keerl (Questions on the Apocrypha, p. 206), is Keil (Comment, 1861, p. 80 ff.)
It is shown by Keil (p. 80) that the relation of our passage to the Sethites had its defenders, both among Jews and Christians, before the time of Chrysostom; since Josephus knew of this interpretation, and the critical Julius Africanus maintained it in the first half of the third century. So also did Ephraim the Syrian, to which add, among the Apocryphal writings, the Clementine Recognitions, and the oriental Book of Adam.
We take first into view the section as it lies before us, with its connection and the analogies of the Old Testament, then the relations to our passage of the New Testament, farther on, the exegetical traditions, and finally, the religious-philosophical, dogmatic, and practical significance of the question.
The Place itself in question; its Connection, and the Analogies of the Old Testament. The Sons of God. Bne Elohim. According to the angel hypothesis, angels alone are here to be understood, not-withstanding that there is no mention of angels immediately before this, to stand as its antecedent, but only of the pious race of Sethites. Chap. 5 gives us an account of pious men, of chosen men, of a wonderfully glorified man of God; but of angels, on the contrary, there is not a word, even to this place, except the mysterious language respecting the cherubim, in which we cannot at all recognize any personal angel-forms. The single apparent ground for a supposition, at first view wild and abrupt, is found in the fact, that in the later books of the Old Testament, not the pious are called , but the angels. It is, however, simply incorrect to say that anywhere in the historical scriptures the angels are called sons of God without anything farther; only in a few poetical places, and in one nominally prophetic (Job 1:2; Job 38:7; Psa 29:1; Psa 89:7 : Dan 3:25) are they so called; and then, too, beside the poetical language, there comes into view the elucidating context. In Job 1 they form the council of God represented as administering government (therefore not bne Elohim, as nomen natur in distinction from Maleak, as nomen officii), and in fact in contrast to Satan. In the same way in chap. 2. In chap. Gen 38:7, they hail the laying the foundation of the earth and the creation of man. Psa 29:1, they are called upon to glorify the Lord in the thunder-storm, and in the restoration of his people. Psa 89:7, are they thus denoted by way of contrasting their dependent state with the glory of the Lord. Dan 3:25 hardly belongs here, but is, perhaps, to be interpreted according to chap. Gen 7:13. In respect to this, Hengstenberg has already shown that the name bne Elohim belongs to the poetic diction.
Whilst, therefore, in the pure historical pieces the angels are never styled sons of God, there does appear the indication of a filial relation, or of a sonship, in respect to the people of Israel, to the Old Testament kings, to the pious or dependent wards of God, and that, too, in various ways, even in the legal sphere. Delitzsch remarks, that the idea of a filial relation in the Old Testament had already begun to win for itself a universal ethical significance beyond the limitation to Israel (Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1)as though this filial relation of the children of Israel, under the law, were a real step in progress in respect to Abraham and the Sethites. But the case is exactly the other way. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the patriarchal standpoint of belief in promise is a higher one than that of the Mosaic legality (Gal 3:16). It is to be specially remarked in regard to Kurtz, that he knew not how to distinguish the different economies of the Old Testament. When, for example, the Apostle Paul tells us, that the law was given through the mipistry of angels, he concludes that the angel of the Lord that appeared to Abraham must have been a creaturely angel (History of the Old Testament, p. 152). And yet Paul brings forward this character of the angelic mediation for the express purpose of showing that the revelation of the promise was a more essential, and, also, a higher form than that of the law-giving; it could not, therefore, have been in this sense (of Kurtz) that the law-giving is referred to the mediation of angels. The explanation consists in this, that the promise was a revelation for Abraham, and, generally, for the elect patriarchs, whilst the law-giving, on the other hand, was for a whole people mingled and coarse, or at all events, greatly needing an educating culture. But as the patriarchal economy, in respect to its relationship to the form of the Gospel, had a superiority to the form of the law-giving, and in so far appears like to the New Testament, so again had the economy of the Sethites a superiority to the Abrahamic. The specific distinction is the separation between the line of the pious, and the godless, curse-loaded line of Cain. Therefore it is that that peculiar designation of Enochs piety: he walked with God, never occurs again in the later law-times of the Old Testament. In a word, the Sethic economy is a in the Old Testament, which has been fundamentally mistaken by the contenders for the angel hypothesis. It has a prefiguration of the New Testament state, and acknowledges, therefore, the , or sons of God, as is done in the New Testament in our Lords sermon on the mount. If the objection is made, that the redemption is not yet perfectly introduced, it is to be remarked, that the faith in redemption, in the time after Christ, is not to be measured, in its degrees, by the chronological advance; as is shown in the examples of Enoch and Abraham. Luther, moreover, knew better how to estimate the worth of this singularity in the economy of the long living so greatly exalted through the blessing of Seth, and who reflected in their life the end of time: They are the greatest heroes that, next to Christ and John the Baptist, ever appeared in this world, and at the last day we shall behold their majesty. Since, therefore, even the law-period, notwithstanding Israels servant-relation, did not exclude the idea of Israels sonship generally, or of the believing especially, (as the places Deu 32:5; Hos 2:1 (therefore not poetical) and Psa 73:15 show to us, how much more clearly must this idea have appeared, in its typical significance and beauty, among the pious descendants of Seth. In that case it has been said, they ought to have been called bne Jehovah (instead of bne Elohim); but this is not to keep clearly in view, that the Sethites represented the universal relation of humanity to God, and that they, like Melchizedek at a later time, disappeared from the stage. That the angels, however, in a physical sense, as opposed to an ethical sense, could be called sons of God,that is, could be referred to some generation of a physical kind, is a view that has been rightly denounced by Keil (p. 11). And in this way, for the unprejudiced, the matter might seem tolerably well disposed of. But further on it occurs as a thing to be considered, that the sons of God woo the daughters of men. How, it is asked, when it is said in its general sense (Gen 6:2) that men multiplied themselves, can we limit the expression daughters of men, Gen 6:2, to the daughters of the Cainites? We cannot here rest upon the usual mode of stating this. There is no reason why the sons of God should have found a tempting beauty only among the daughters of the Cainites. The daughters of men may, in the first place, be women in general. In that case, however, the first contrast would consist in regarding the ethically defined sons of God as opposed to the physically defined daughters of men,among whom the Cainitic women might be primarily understood, especially since the Sethite women too belong to the children of God. Their first transgression, however, would consist in this, that in the choice of wives they let themselves be determined by the mere charm of sensual beauty. From this follows the second transgression, that they took them wives of all whom they chose, that is, of all that pleased them. On the word , therefore, rests the emphasis of the expression (out of all). Instead of looking at the spiritual kinsmanship, they had an eye only to the pleasure of sense. That was the first thing. Then there is nothing said here of any moral satisfaction in beauty. This appears from the fact that they took them wives of all that pleased them, of all that they desired. Instead of holding pure the Sethic line, they took wives indiscriminately (), and that was the second and decisive transgression. By this was the dam torn down which stood between the Cainites and the Sethites,that is, the dam which kept back the universal corruption, and which hitherto had protected the race of the blessing. Therefore is it, Gen 6:3, that the corruption which now comes is charged upon men, and not at all upon the angels. If we look for a moment at the angel hypothesis, it is not easy to see how such amours with individual women could have had so decided an effect upon the destiny of the whole race, at a time, too, when more than now, men formed the deciding factor; and this may we say, without taking into view the fact, that in the historical style angels are never called bne Elohim, that angels do not seek nor are sought in marriage (Mat 22:30), and that the expression: take themselves wives, denotes marriage-ties, not by way of unnatural amours, or romantic loves, as Kurtz pictures it in his first treatise (p. 99). But indeed, out of those demoniacal, fleshly amours, it is said, must have proceeded the and , and thus they would bring the whole matter to a decision. In the first place, however, must we remember, that the sentence of God respecting the desperate condition of the race (Gen 6:3) precedes this mention of the Nephilim, and it is clear that the must already denote a special form of the evil, which, with its fleshly lust, stands at the same time in a position of reciprocity. According to almost all interpretations, and according to Num 13:33, when the giant Anakim are reckoned among them, the Nephilim were gigantic,or, more accurately, the distinguished, the prominent or overpowering. According to such it is from , a near form to ; other derivations see below. In their bodily appearance the Nephilim were not exactly what are called giants in the mythical sense, but prominent and powerful forms of men. In strength, in courage, or pride, they were Gibborim, that is, mighty men, heroes; in deeds, they were men of renown; but their deeds were especially deeds of violence (Gen 6:11; Gen 6:13), unrighteousness, and oppression. The meaning is, that the fleshly nature of pride and cruelty ever associates itself with the fleshly disorder of lust. Lamech the Cainite and his song were now the general type of the human race. But as the tendency to violence came in cotemporaneously with the lust, and not as a generation for the first time descending from it, so were the Nephilim contemporaneous with these fleshly mesalliances, having been, in fact, from the days of Cain hitherto men of renown. The Hebrew is , not ; there were Nephilim, it is said, , in those same days, not there became or came to be, as Knobel translates it. Add to this the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, that is, of the grossly sensual marriages of the pious, and their mingling with the Cainitic race. Thus flow together two origins of the Gibborim. In respect to the first were they men of renown, or men of old, that is, the Cainites. Thus, too, in the easiest way does our section connect itself with both the preceding chapters. In the fourth chapter there is described the line of the Cainites as still divided from the line of Seth; in the fifth chapter we have the line of the Sethites in its devotedness and elevation; then, finally, in the section before us, the mingling of both lines, and the universality and flagitiousness of corruption, as, according to the programme of the Cainitic Lamech, it culminates in the two fundamental features of carnality and cruelty. Whoever reads Genesis, to the passage before us, without any prejudice derived from opinions alien to it, would never think of understanding by the bne Elohim anything else than the pious Sethites, and by their connection with the daughters of men anything else than a corruption of marriage and a mingling with the Cainites. This would especially appear from the fact, that in this section the sharp contrast between the two lines, which is so prominent in the previous chapter, wholly disappears. If we read further we find, too, that not the Cainites alone perished in the flood, but both lines together, with the exception of Noah and his house. Further on, Ishmael, who is a wild man, and whose hand is against every man, appears as the offspring of Abraham and the maid, a copy, as it were, giving us a clear idea of the Gibborim, and of the way in which they originated, although the connection of the patriarch was from a purer motive, and more excusable. Hence the traditional and legal abhorrence of untheocratic marriages in the theocratic race; as we find it in Gen 24:3; Gen 26:34-35; Gen 27:46; Gen 34:9; Deu 7:3; Jos 23:12; Jdg 3:6; 1Ki 11:1; Ezr 9:2; Neh 10:30. The falling away of the Israelites in the desert came not from any amour between angels and the daughters of men, but from an unlawful intercourse between the Israelites and the women of Midian (Numbers 25). So the apostasies of Israel in the time of the Judges were derived from the mingling of the Israelites with the daughters of the Canaanites (Jdg 3:6). The fall of Solomon, and the falling away of the people that followed it, came from Solomons connection with foreign wives (1Ki 11:1). So the ten tribes sunk into the worship of Baal in consequence of the connection of Ahab with the Sidonian Jezebel, whose horrible significance goes on even to the Apocalypse (1Ki 16:31; Rev 2:20); and so, too, Ezra and Nehemiah, after the great visitation, know no other way to secure their people against a new degeneracy, than by contending earnestly against foreign marriages. Thus again and again do the theocratic mesalliances of one section reflect themselves in the Israelitish history, without the angels playing any part therein. For the first time, in the apocryphal Tobit (Tob 6:15), does there meet us a demoniac interest in human females, and this is characteristic for the origin of the angel-hypothesis. Here, too, it must be remarked, that marriage with the heathen was not absolutely forbidden to the Israelites. When the principle was secured, that the believing party might make holy the unbelieving (1 Corinthians 7), such marriages appear sometimes even in a favorable light. It was only union with the Canaanites that was absolutely forbidden, since they, as well as the Cainites, were sunk in incurable corruption; and Hengstenberg has rightly supposed that our history here was given for the purpose of warning the Israelites against such marriages.
2. The relations of the New Testament to the passage before us. There is the passage of the Epistle of Jude, Gen 6:6, which, in fact, we regard as the original in its relation to the kindred passage, 2Pe 2:4. Here, too, Kurtz reasons from the mode of speaking, but not happily: Both epistles designate the actors who are punished as simply . When we interrogate the biblical style of speech it shows us at once that this word is never thus nakedly used of spirits who have fallen. These are ever called , and their head or . We will give presently the simple solution of this objected difficulty. Wherever there is mention of the actual existence of Satans kingdom it is naturally and generally of Satan, of the demons, etc., although variations occur, as Eph 6:12, et al. Here, however, when the original fall itself of the demons is mentioned, they must be denoted according to their original state as angels. Otherwise it would mean that the devil had sinned, and thereby became a devil. In that case our catechisms would have to be corrected where they speak of fallen angels. When it is said, however, that there is here no special mention of Satan, or that the sins of the angels cannot be particularly described, or that the fall of Satan is nowhere designated as a leaving his habitation, all such assertions we must hold as having no significance at all.
The Epistle of Jude is a prophetical word of warning against the beginning of antinomianism. Here the Israelites who fell in the wilderness are the first example. In respect to these it is confessed that they did not fall in the wilderness merely on account of sins of sensuality. Then are there named the angels who kept not their dominion () but for-sook their own proper habitationthat is, their sphere of life. The contrast in the guilt of these angels is made clear by that which precedes. The Jews in the wilderness kept not their salvation, but gave themselves up to unbelief and fell. The angels kept not their dominion, but lost their station and fell. To this corresponds the third example: Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities are presented in a similar manner with these (), that is, the angels and the Israelites, as an example of such as are exposed to the judgment of the eternal fire, and this on the special ground of their excessive sensuality, and their degenerate going after strange flesh. The words stand in relation to , and the parenthetical has its special interpretation as referring to the Sodomites. The Israelites in the wilderness furnish an example of a lost condition, as , the angels as , &c., Sodom and Gomorrah as , &c. The forms of antinomianism are different, the judgment upon it is throughout the same. The distinction, however, in antinomianism is this, that the Israelites sinned through unbelief in the word of revelation; the angels sinned against the divine ordinance, assigning their position, and in striving, beyond their sphere, after a limitless dominion; the Sodomites sinned against the natural law of the sexual relations, established as a moral foundation of life itself. The antinomists, against whom Jude contended, resemble the before-named in this, that like the Sodomites they pollute the flesh; like the fallen angels they contemn authority; like the unbelieving Israelites they speak evil of , glories (rendered dignitiesvisible proofs of the revelation of God in Israel). So, too, in the second chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, the ground-idea is the inexorability of the divine judgment against an obdurate anomism, without giving the special form of that anomism. Of the angels it is merely said that they sinned. God spared them not although they were angels. And so he spared not the whole old world (Genesis 6), on whom there is here no other charge imputed than (impiety). So, too, Sodom and Gomorrah are here denoted as having incurred judgment solely under the same point of view. Clearly, however, has the second Epistle of Peter distinguished, in addition, the judgment of the fallen angels from the judgment upon the old world (Genesis 6). The judgment against the angels, the judgment against the old world, and the judgment upon Sodom, are three judgment periods. And these places, it is pretended, exactly confirm the angel-hypothesis! Compare also Fronmller on the respective places, in the Bible-work.
3. The exegetical tradition. The first interpretation, in which the bne Elohim were sons of the magnates, or great ones, who wooed the daughters of the low-born, Keil denotes as the interpretation of orthodox Judaism. More correctly, however, may it be denoted as the interpretation of the Hebraistic or Palestinian Judaism, in its dry story-telling tendency as represented in the Talmud. The second interpretation Keil rightly describes as that of the ethnizing, cabbalistical Judaism; however zealous Kurtz may be on its behalf (Part i. p. 8). It is not without significance that the first trace of this interpretation appears in single codices of the Septuagint. It is sufficiently acknowledged that the Alexandrian Jews took pains in every way to throw a bridge between the Old Testament and the Greek tradition. Here now appears a fair probable occasion to introduce into the biblical text an analogous story of Sons of God and of divine begettings. Thereupon present themselves two apocryphal books as the first defenders of the angel-hypothesis: the Book of Enoch and the Lesser Genesis. Without doubt Philo found it already in existence, and it suited entirely well with his system; whilst it is acknowledged, too, by the more hebraistic Josephus. That Christian theologians of the Alexandrian school, like Clemens Alexandrinus, uncritical fathers like Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, should find the angel-hypothesis suited to their peculiar notions, is nothing to be wondered at. The fact that from the fourth even to the eighteenth century, with some isolated exceptions, the taste of the church discovered in the angel-hypothesis a suspicious theosophic savor, cannot be set aside.
4. The religious, philosophical, dogmatic, and practical significance of our question. In its relation to the philosophy of religion the angel-hypothesis would have the effect of confounding all the ground conceptions of revelation, and of obliterating its distinctions. It authenticates a fact which perfectly destroys all distinction between revelation and mythology, between a divine miracle and magic, between the biblical conception of nature, as conformity to law, and the wild apocryphal stories. We stand here, says Delitzsch, at the fountain of heathen mythology with its legends, but this primitive golden age, to take it in the sense of heathenism, is divested of all its apotheosizing gaudiness. Rather may it be said, if we take that view, that an evident myth was implanted in the garden of the primitive religious history; it is therefore not to be wondered at, that all theologians who maintain the mythical character of Genesis, like Knobel for example, should go in most earnestly for the angel-interpretation. And no less, adds Delitzsch, do we stand here, at the fountain of a dark magic that carries us back, if not to a sexual, yet still to an unnatural intercourse with the demons. We stand rather by the troubled waters of a paganistic apocryphal superstition, where the siren of an apparent theosophic profundity would allure us to plunge into the dark floods of baseless paradox. With what sort of superstition this angel-interpretation had already connected itself in early times we may learn from the twenty-second chapter of Tertullians Apologetic. When we regard it in its dogmatic relation we find the most wonderful things proceeding from the view in question when fully carried out. There would be a double fall into sin, one in the human, the other in the angelic, family.
The effects of the second fall must be destroyed by a flood, whilst those of the first remain through and after it. The gnosticizing darkening of this place has for a consequence that there should be gradually drawn from it series after series of similar deductions, according to the tenor of its biblical dogmatic process of idealless, anecdotical inventiveness; for example, what is said on the passage (1Pe 3:19-20) respecting Christs preaching to the spirits in prison.
Instead of this, we hold that the derivation of the angel-interpretation from an ethnizing, apocryphal, gnostico-cabbalistical tendency in Judaism (as we find it shown in Keil) is the correct one. We hold, too, that Hengstenberg had grounds for the affirmation, when he said: The next thing is, that in the maintaining of this supposed remarkable fact, men are led into uncouth theories, which violate the limits that separate the churchs theology from the chimerical ideas of Jews and Mohammedans, and that one such distortion of a sound theological comprehension may possibly have for its consequence an extensive process of disorder. In like manner does the objection appear well grounded, that the angel-interpretation robs our narrative of all significance and practical applicability. The same practical significance which is exhibited in the history of the Israelites in the wilderness (Numbers 25), and in the time of the Judges in the history of Solomon, in the history also of Ahab, in the history of Herod Antipasthat same significance, though in a more powerful and original way, is presented in the history that lies before us. We may, therefore, with Cyril of Alexandria, reckon the angel-interpretation among the , things most strange and absurd.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. Gen 6:1-3. When men began.The increase of men under a physical point of view; especially, too, an increase of daughters.The Sons of God, that is, the Sethites especially, as sons of Elohim, not of Jehovah, because their relation to God was more universal than that of the later theocracy, and because the Sethic religion had no contrast of the Elohistic, as the later Abrahamic had, since the opposing Cainitic line was not Elohistically pious, but lived an utterly lawless life.The daughters of men.Usually taken as the daughters of the other race, that is, the Cainites. But they are the daughters of men wholly in the physical sense, and therefore, too, according to the conception of the natural man, in contrast with the sons of God in the ethical sense, only that the thought is mainly upon the Cainites, in proportion to their greater multiplication.Saw that they were fair [Langes translation: They looked upon them, how fair they were].We must not reduce the force of the expression by rendering: they saw that they were fair. The sensual beauty captivated them.Took them wives of all.The phrase means, everywhere in the Old Testament, to take in marriage, but never occurs in the sense of mere scortatory intermarryings (from which also we must distinguish the sense, to take as concubines).Which they chose.The emphasis is on (of all). From this it follows that the sons of God let themselves be determined by the charm of sense to form connections also with the Cainite women, and so to rend asunder the protecting limits which hitherto had guarded their race from the corruptive contagion. Moreover, the prevalence of polygamy is clearly presented in the expression.My Spirit shall not always strive with man.We cannot understand here of the Spirit of God as the spirit of life, but of the Spirit of God in an ethical sense, as it belongs to its office to judge and to punish sinful men. Von Gerlach says, indeed: the contrast of spirit and flesh in the moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not occur in the Old Testament. But, what is meant here by saying, my spirit shall not tarry in man as spirit of life, for he is flesh? The flesh as flesh does not hinder the life-spirit, but the flesh as corruption repels the Spirit of God (Psa 139:7; Psa 143:10). We take here in its simplest and most obvious sense, not as the ruling of the life-spirit, nor as the continuance of the same in man (Septuagint), nor as its degradation or depression. In the sinner who is yet capable of salvation the Spirit of God exercises its judicial office. But, when man has become wholly obdurate, God withdraws from him his judging spirit, and thereby he falls into the condemnation of corruption. The circumstance is here incidentally introduced. This is shown by the addition, , in their erring (which, without any necessity, is turned into a conjunction: , eo quod; Knobel and Delitzsch), and the emphatic expression: he is flesh, that is, the whole species, like one man, is sunk in its flesh. Still, there is the expression: My spirit shall not always strive in him; which means that there is yet a respite appointed for the race, and this is explained by, and explains, what follows: And his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. According to Philo, Josephus, and others, along with Knobel, it means that henceforth the period of human life shall be reduced to one hundred and twenty years. (See in Knobel a series of quotations from the views of the ancients respecting the life-endurance of man, p. 83). According to the Targums, Luther, and many others, as well as Delitzsch and Keil, God appoints a reprieve of grace for one hundred and twenty years, which is yet to be granted to men. Beyond a doubt this is the correct view; since the age of the first patriarchs after the flood extends much beyond one hundred and twenty years. Another reason is, that the supposed shortening of life would be no countervailing rule bearing a proportion to the obduracy of the race, whilst the time-reckoning agrees with the other hypothesis, if we assume that Noah received this revelation twenty years before the time given, Gen 5:32, in order that he might announce it as a threatening of judgment to his contemporaries.
[Note on the Spirit and the Flesh: Gen 6:3.The various interpretations of here must be tested by their harmony with words in the context. The life that I have given shall not always rule (or abide) in man. This does not seem to suit well with . Shall not long rule, &c., would have been consistent. The word forever makes it the same with the original sentence of death pronounced upon man: he shall not live foreverhe shall die. My spirit shall not strive with man (morally) makes a good sense in itself, but has little congruity with the reason given: because he is flesh, or is inclined to the flesh, whether we take the old or the later interpretation of . That alone would seem to be a reason why it should continue to strive; since man had been flesh, or inclined to be flesh, ever since the fall. Unless we take it, as Pareus does, as denoting a feeling of hopelessness, ratio ab inutili:it is of no use; but this would be a form of the anthropopathism the least acceptable of all that are presented; unless it be that of some of the Jewish interpreters: My own mind, or thought, shall no longer be occupied or troubled with himI will have no more care about him.
There is another view that may be offered, and which would seem to harmonize these difficulties. Some of the Jewish interpreters approach it, but do not come fully up to it. My spirit, meaning mans spirit (the spirit that I have given him), but in the higher sense of as distinguished from , according to the trichotomic view. The reason, wherein appears the image of God, the spirit in man as something higher than the animal nature, the as distinguished from the , may, with a high propriety, be called my spirit, as nearest to the divine, or, that in man through which, or in which, the Holy Spirit strives, or comes in connection with the human. It is not always easy, even in the New Testament, to determine whether , in certain passages, means the rational spirit of man, or the Spirit of God, or both in one joint communion. Von Gerlach has no right to say that the contrast of spirit and flesh in the moral understanding, as in the Epistles of Paul, does not occur in the Old Testament, unless it can be shown that this is not a clear case of it.
When is thus regarded as the spiritual, or rational, in man, in distinction from the carnal, the sentence becomes a prediction, instead of a declaration of judgmenta sorrowing prediction, we may say, if we keep in view the predominant aspect or feeling of the passage. The spirit, the reason, that which is most divine in man, will not always rule in him. It has, as yet, maintained a feeble power, and interposed a feeble resistance, but it is in danger of being wholly overpowered. It will not hold out forever; it will not always maintain its supremacy. And then the reason given suits exactly with such a prediction: He is becoming flesh, wholly carnal or animal. If allowed to continue he will become utterly dehumanized, or that worst of all creatures, an animal with a reason, but wholly fleshly in its ends and exercises, or with a reason which is but the servant of the flesh, making him worse than the most ferocious wild beasta very demona brutal nature with a fiends subtlety only employed to gratify such brutality. Man has the supernatural, and this makes the awful peril of his state. By losing it, or rather by its becoming degraded to be a servant instead of a lord, he falls wholly into nature, where he cannot remain stationary, like the animal who does not leave the habitation to which God first appointed him. The higher being, thus utterly fallen, must sink into the demonic, where evil becomes his god, if not, as Milton says, his good. In this sense of the reason in man, or the , ruling over the flesh, there is a most appropriate significance in , as denoting the judicial power of the conscience, or of the reason as the imperative, the commanding faculty. On these deeper aspects of humanity, consult that most profound psychologist, John Bunyan, in his Holy War, or his History of the Town of Mansoul, its revolt from King Shaddai, its surrender to Diabolus, and its recovery by Prince Immanuel. Bunyan was Bible-taught in these matters, and that is the reason why his knowledge of man goes so far beyond that of Locke, or Kant, or Cousin.
The whole aspect of the passage gives the impression of something like an apprehension that a great change was coming over the racesomething so awful and so irreparable, if not speedily remedied, that it would be better that it should be blotted out of earthly existence, all but a remnant in whom the spiritual, or the divine in man, might yet be preserved. Thus regarded, too, as a prediction, it is the ground of the judgment rather than a sentence of judgment itself. It is in mercy to prevent a greater catastrophe; like the language used in reference to the tree of life (see page 241, and note). Men, left to themselves, might have realized upon earth the irrecoverable state of lost spirits, or that combination of the brutal with an utterly degraded reason that makes the demon. In this view, too, the divine sorrow appears heightened in such a way that we can better understand what is meant by Gods grieving, and being pained in heart. A generation of men is to be removed to prevent the utter dehumanizing of the race. It was this necessity that made the intensity of the sorrow.
Delitzsch has a similar view, but it is strange that he did not see how it is in conflict with his angel-hypothesis. According to that, the deangelizing, if we may use the term, and the consequent dehumanizing, was confined to these higher beings and some of the daughters of men. And yet they are not mentioned as having any part in the catastrophe, or in the immediate evil that occasioned it. Men alone are involved in it, and they because of an excessive sensuality that had made it inevitable. This, however, was purely human; it was man that was in danger of becoming wholly flesh, and it was man for whom God grieved with a divine sorrow. It was man who was in danger of descending into a lower grade of being, even as the ante-Adamic angels who kept not their first estate. The antediluvians were drowned for the salvation of a race, but for some of them, at least, 1Pe 3:19-20, gives us the glimpse of a hope that their condition was not wholly irrecoverable.T. L.]
2. Gen 6:4. There were giants.The , from , used only in the plural, Num 13:33. All the old interpretations take the word as denoting giants, . If we put out of view the monstrous popular representations, there are simply meant by it stately and powerful men. In this sense Tuch explains the word as mentioned before, namely, the distinguished. Keil understands by the word, invaders, according to Aquila (), Symmachus (), Luther (tyrants). Delitzsch, nevertheless, together with Hofmann, prefers to explain it as the fallen, namely, from heaven, because begotten by heavenly beings. Here from to falt, would he make to fall from, and from this again, to fall from heaven; then this is made to mean begotten of heavenly beings! The sense, cadentes, defectores, apostat (see Gesenius), would be more near the truth. There were giants (), not, there became giants, which would have required for its expression (see Keil). These giants, or powerful men, are already in near cotemporaneity with the transgression of these mesalliances (in those very same days), and this warrants the conclusion of Luther, that these powerful men were doers of violent deeds.And also after that [Lange renders: and especially after that].Keil shows that Kurtz makes trial of three mutually inconsistent explanations of this verse, all of which, too, offend against the law of language (p. 89, note). We take as denoting a climax to the fact already stated. There were giants in those days, and moreover, etc. Here it comes nearly to the same thing, whether we render posteaquam (2Sa 24:10) or postea quum; the fact remains established that the Nephilim were already before the mesalliances.Came in unto: an euphemistic phrase.Mighty men [Lange renders it heroes].A designation, not merely of offspring from the mismarriages, but referring also to the Nephilim who are earlier introduced, as it appears from the appended clause. The author reports things from his own standpoint, and so the expression: they were of old, men of renown, affirms their previous existence down to that time. Of these men of old, men of renown, Cain was the first. But now there are added to the Cainites the Cainitic degenerate off-spring of these sensual mesalliances. It was true then, as it has been in all other periods of the worlds history, the men of violent deeds were the men of renown, very much the same whether called famous or infamous. Knobel will have it that there are described here postdiluvian races of giants.
3. Gen 6:5-8. And God saw [Lange correctly: And Jehovah saw].This increase and universal predominance of evil through the mismarriages gives occasion now for a more decided sentence of Jehovah upon the incurably lost race. The wickedness of man in deeds had not only become great, but the thinkings of the purposes (the phantasies or imaged deeds) of his heart, were wholly evil all the day. Judging from the singular , we hold here, as intended, a concentration of the sentence against man. For this reason is it singular.
[Note on the Doctrine of Total Depravity. Gen 6:5.Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, . The Scriptures, it is said, were not given to teach us mental philosophy, nor do they affect a philosophical language, but here is certainly a psychological scala going down as deeply into the human soul as was ever done by any scholastic treatise. Here are the three stages of the great original evil: the fashioned purpose, the thought out of which it is born, the feeling, or deep mother heart, the state of soul, lying below all, and giving moral character to all. Or, to reverse the order of the statement, there Isaiah , 1. the tohu vabohu, the formless abyss of evil, 2. the thought (the , see Heb 4:12), by which this rises into generic form, 3. the imaged or specific purpose (), through which, again, this thought makes itself manifest in the objective sphere of the active life. In other words, as the thought is the form of the feeling, so is the shaped purpose, or what is here called the imagination, the form of the evil thought. Our Saviour gives the same gradations, Mat 15:19 : Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts ( , evil thinkings, reasonings, subjective, not yet shaped into outward intent), and then follows the awful brood of the later born, , , , , murders, adulteries, thefts, blasphemies. They are all in the thought; they are all in the mother-heart, that deep seat of moral character that lies below the formative consciousnessthat is, the conscious thought and still more conscious purpose. Take the worst one apparently of these hideous births; a man may not have formed the purpose of murder, fear may have kept him from this extreme stage; he may never have entertained the thought consciously, the habitual educating power of law, or other influences of a social or of a gracious kind, may have prevented even this objective form of evil from rising in his soul; but it may lie in his heart nevertheless, and even be active there, for this dark place is not a mere blank capacity, or receptacle, but has its processes, its choosings, its willings, and even its unconscious reasonings. Our Saviour declares neither more nor less than this when he makes it the procreative source of evil thoughts (), and so does the Apostle, 1Jn 3:15 : Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. This idea of the unconscious heart, as underlying all moral character, is deeply grounded in the Hebrew language. Hence the peculiar expression , to ascend, come up, in the heart, or above the heart. See Jer 3:16; 2Sa 11:20, with other places. One of the most striking is in Eze 11:5 : Thus shall ye say to the house of Israel, , the upgoings of your spirit, I know every one of them,implying how deeply unknown they might be in their source, even to those who were the subjects of them.
: Only evil, nothing but evil, all the dayevery day, and every moment of every day. If this is not total depravity, how can language express it? There is an intense aversion to the phrase in some minds. It is shared by many who would admit that human depravity is taught in the Bible, and that it is great. This term, however, of our older and more exact theologians, shocks them. The feeling comes, in some measure, from a misapprehension of its true meaning. It is a term of extensity, rather than of intensity. It is opposed to partial, to the idea that man is sinful in one moment, and innocent, or sinless, in another, or sinful in some acts and pure in others. It affirms that he is all wrong, in all things, and all the time. It does not mean that man is as bad as the devils, or that every man is as bad as every other, or that any man is as bad as he possibly may be, or may become. That is, there are degrees of intensity, but no limit to the universality or extent of the evil in the soul. So say the Scriptures, and so says the awakened conscience.
There seems to be an allusion to the psychological division of Gen 6:5, in Heb 4:12. The extent and depth of human sinfulness are kept from the objective consciousness by the ignorance or denial of the threefold distinction here conveyedthe purposes, the thoughts, and the heart. According to the Apostle, it is the office of the living word ( , vivid and inworking), sharper than a two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing (the division line) of soul and spirit ( and ) to make these distinctions, and bring them home to the human conscience. Hence it is called a critical discerner (and exposer) of the purposes and the thinkings of the heart. In this language corresponds locally to , and to . The terms are no mere redundant tautology, any more than those used above for soul and spirit. The bare dichotomic view fails to explain the language of the Scripture, whether as given in its Greek or Hebrew terms. The Greek words, however, are less precise than the Hebrew, since both and may be used for the purpose or the thought.T. L.]
And it repented the Lord.Most truly, as Keil rightly remarks, is this sentence so pronounced on man alone, directly against the angel-interpretation. On that hypothesis the angels must have been the original authors of the corruption; and so in consistency with Genesis 3, where the serpent is first sentenced, ought the first doom here to have been pronounced upon the sinning angels.It repented Jehovah.A peculiarly strong anthropopathic expression, which, however, presents the truth that God, in consistency with his immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man (Psa 18:27), and that, as against the impenitent man who identifies himself with the sin, he must assume the appearance of hating the sinner in the sin, even as he hates the sin in the sinner. But that Jehovah, notwithstanding, did not begin to hate man, is shown in the touching anthropomorphism that follows, and it grieved him in his heart. The first kind of language is explained in the flood, the second in the revelation of Peter, 1Pe 3:19-20, and Gen 4:6. Against the corruption of man, though extending even to the depths of his heart, there is placed in contrast Gods deep grieving in his heart. But as the repentance of God does not take away his unchangeableness and his counsel, but rightly establishes them, so neither does Gods grieving detract from his immutability in blessedness, but shows, rather, Gods deep feeling of the distance between the blessedness to which man was appointed and his painful perdition. Delitzsch does indeed maintain it, as most real or actual truth, that God feels repentance, and he does not equate this position with the doctrine of Gods unchangeableness, unless it be with the mere remark that the pain and purpose of the divine wrath are only moments in an everlasting plan of redemption, which cannot become outward in its efficacy without a movement in the Godhead. And yet movement is not change.I will destroy man.To man in the wider sense pertains the human sphere of life; therefore it is said that the beasts too shall be destroyed. Of any corruption that had entered into the animal there is no mention (see Gen 6:12). The perishing of the beasts, therefore, can only have meaning as a sharing in the atonement for human sins (Jer 12:4; Jer 14:5; Hos 4:3; Joe 1:18; Zep 1:3. Knobel). It is rather as a consequence of the dependence of the animal world upon man that it is joined with him in joy and sorrow. We are not to think of it as something personified together with man, but as the symbolic impersonal extension of his organism.But Noah found grace.In these words there breaks forth from the dark cloud of wrath the mercy which gives security for the preservation and restoration of humanity. Keil.
[Note on the Divine Repenting, Gen 6:6.We do not gain much by attempts to explain philosophically such states or movements of the divine mind. They are strictly ineffable. So the Scripture itself represents them: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, saith the Lord; as the heavens are high above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts,that is, my thinking, my mode of thinking, above your thinking. And then these same Scriptures, so far transcending all philosophy in the abstract declaration of the ineffable difference, furnish us helps by means of finite conceptions, human representations, anthropopathisms, as we learnedly call them, condescensions, accommodations. Let us not vainly attempt to get above them, as though they were made for lower minds, whilst we, from some higher position, as it were, can look over them, or see through them, and are thus enabled to dispense with their aid. If they are accommodations, let us be accommodated by them; since here all human minds are very much on a par. Our right feeling is much more concerned in this than our right understanding. We cannot rise to God, and we should reverently adore the effort, if we may so call it, which he makes to come down to us, to enter into the sphere of the finite, to think our thinking, and thus to converse with us in our own language. Without this there can be no intercourse between the infinite and the finite mind. Gods putting himself in the place of man is the idea and the key of all revelation. In this sense, even nature itself has an anthropopathic language. We must put our feet upon the lower rounds of this ladder thus let down to us,in other words, we must use these accommodations, use them reverently, honestly, thankfully, or have in the mind a total blank in respect to all those conceptions of God that most concern us as moral beings. Talk as we will of impassibility, we must think of God as having , affections, something connecting him with the human, and, therefore, human in some aspect or measure of agreement. We must either have in our thoughts a blank intellectuality making only an intellectual difference between good and evil (if that can be called any difference at all), or we are compelled to bring in something emotional, and that, too, with a measure of intensity corresponding to other differences by which the divine exceeds the human. Without this, the highest form of scientific or philosophic theism has no more of religion than the blankest atheism. We could as well worship a system of mathematics as such a theistic indifference. The emotional in view of the true and the right, the evil and the false, is a higher thing than the intellectual perception of them, even could we suppose such separable cognition. We do not rightly see the true, or truly see the right, unless we love it; we do not truly see the evil or the false, unless we have the opposite affection. It belongs to the very essence or being of the ideas. Such emotional is the highest thing in man, and is it rational to suppose that all this is a blank in the higher being of God? Reason may sometimes go safely in affirming what it cannot define, and reconcile with other and lower affirmations. Thus here, an intellectual and a moral necessity may compel us to say that the idea of the emotional in the divine has a veritable existence, though the conception utterly fails to reach it; just as reason truly affirms the infinite in mathematics, and with as clear a certainty as that of any finite ratio, though sense and imagination are both transcended by it. It may know that a thing is, that it must be, though not how it is. So here, a moral necessity compels us to hold that there is such a region of the divine emotional, most intensely real,more real, if we may make degrees, than knowledge or intellectualitythe very ground, in fact, of the divine personal being.
If we would carefully examine, too, our own feelings, we would find that it is not alone a supposed repugnance to reason that is the ground of the difficulty. We do not raise the objection of anthropopathism when love is ascribed to God, and yet it is as strictly anthropopathic as the divine indignation, or the divine sorrow. An unemotional love is utterly inconceivable. It is inseparable, too, from the other elements. Love for the good has no meaning except as involving displeasure at the evil; and sorrow, to speak humanly, is but the blending of the two emotions in view of the loss or marring of the lovely, and the predominance of the unloved. And in this we have the thought so fearful, whilst so attractive and sublime: the intensity of the one must be the measure of the intensity of the other. Depart in the least from the idea of indifferentism, and we have no limit but infinity. God either cares nothing about what we call good and evilor, as the heaven of heavens is high above the earth, so far do his love for the good, and his hatred of evil, exceed, in their intensity, any corresponding human affection.
The great business, therefore, of the interpreter of Scripture is to determine philologically the nature of the emotion expressed by these words, and then the theologian is to take them in their highest intensity, and in such a way as shall not be in contradiction with other divine attributes, whether given to us by clear reason, or revealed to us in the Scriptures. Thus it will be found that this word, , rendered in Niphal to repent, has a dual relation, the first and primary to the feeling, the second to the purpose. The first connects itself with what may be called the onomatepic significance, to sigh, to draw the breath; hence ingemuit, doluit, as Gesenius gives it. Hence pnituit eum, it repented him, in the sense of sorrow. The anthropopathism thus expressed is the more touching form, and the whole context shows that it is the one predominantly intended here. It is no change of purpose, no confession of mistake, but a most affecting representation of the divine pity and tenderness. The language following shows this: and he was grieved at the heart, when he saw how this fair world, which he had once pronounced good, exceeding good, had become marred and full of evil. In the course of its applications the word naturally gets also the other or more secondary, yet quite common sense of change of purpose. It is thus used, 1Sa 15:29 : God will not lie, neither does he repent; he is not man that he should repentliterally, man to repent,that is, he does not repent like man with change of plan or purpose. The other, and more primary idea, comes also in this very passage relating to Saul, as appears Gen 6:35; unless, contrary to all rules of criticism, we would bring the writer in immediate and palpable contradiction with himself. See also Psa 110:4. The repenting of sorrow is the anthropopathism that is always to be supposed when the language is applied directly to Deity; as Psa 106:45, , and he repented according to the greatness of his mercy; Psa 90:13, Return Jehovahhow long!and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.
As an instance of the way in which words branch out into various meanings, till they sometimes get almost a reverse sense, it may be noted how this word, in this very conjugation, gets the meaning of revenging, or rather of avenging. It comes from the primary idea of breathing, finding relief from the letting out of pent-up indignation. When thus applied to Deity the anthropopathism is terrific, and yet the context always shows that no other term could so express the vehemency of the indignation; as in Isa 1:24 , well rendered, to the letter, I will ease me of mine adversaries; yet even here there is something touching in the anthropopathism, from the greatness of the long-suffering that appears in the verses preceding. Compare Eze 5:13; Eze 31:16; Eze 32:31. More nearly allied, however, both to the primary, and to the sense we have traced in Genesis 6 is the Piel idea of consolation. It is the sympathizing sorrow, as in Gen 50:21, where Joseph comforts his brethren by palliating their guilt. Its primary sense, as well as its tenderness, appears in what is immediately added, , and he soothed them, and spake to their heart. Compare Isa 40:1, Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, and especially Psa 23:4, where it expresses the soothing care of the shepherd for the wearied, panting sheep. It is this sense of sympathizing sorrow that makes the exquisite beauty of its tenderness.T. L.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The character of the Alexandrian Judaism, as inclined to the Gnostic and the apocryphal, needs to be recognized in order that we may estimate its influence upon the old and traditional exegesis of this passage, and on the passage itself as given in the codices of the Septuagint.
2. There is a difference between the biblical and apocryphal measure of the doctrine respecting the demons, analogous to the difference between faith and superstition, or the difference between the sensus communis of a sound theology and the hankering taste of a mere theosophy.
3. The Scripture distinguishes between corrupting mixed-marriages of the pious and the godless, which, according to their point of departure (that is, sensual satisfaction), draw down the nobler part into community with the base, and unlike marriages among those of different religious communions, which may draw up those of lower standing to the stand-point of the more elevated. It is because there lies originally at the ground of the latter a moral motive. To the first class belong, next to our history, the marriage of Esau, the Midianitic connections (Numbers 25, yet only in conditional measure, since, in this case, there is mention only of licentious amours), the marriages of the Israelites with the Canaanitish women (Judges 3), the Delilah of Samson, the foreign wives of Solomon, Jezebel in Israel, Athaliah in Judah (both having a fearful efficacy for the corruption of the people), the daughters of Sanballat (Neh 13:28), who gave occasion for the false worship on Gerizim. To these, if we regard the essence of the matter, we may add the case of Herodias in the New Testament, and connect with them analogous examples in the history of the church and of the world, even to our own day. To the other class belong such cases as that of Thamar, the marriage or the marriages of Moses, the case of Rahab, the marriages of the sons of Naomi (see Book of Ruth), the cases mentioned by Paul, 1Co 7:13, the case of Eunice, 2Ti 1:5, and many examples from old church history, where Christian princesses have been the means of converting heathen husbands, and, through them, of the conversion of whole nations. From this contrast it appears that a mere zeal in the abstract against mixed marriages is not grounded on the Bible, but that it depends on this whether the motive for the contraction of marriage is the instruction of the one who occupies the lower position, or a religious apostasy of the higher. And so, too, the political and civic conception of mesalliances is to be determined by fundamental positions of a moral and religious kind. In the universal treatment of this question, there comes also into consideration the moral predominance and the social priority of the man, as well as the great religious influence of the wife, especially of the zealous, or of the bigoted wife.
4. Between the moral and ennobling satisfaction in female beauty, as, for example, in the love of Jacob and Rachel, and the satisfaction of sensual desire, there is a specific difference. Beyond a doubt, a satisfaction of the latter kind is meant in our text, as plainly appears from the expression: they took them wives of all (that is, without exception) that pleased them. Such a wide choice is unknown to the moral love. The language appears, too, to hint at a Cainite polygamy. The expression , as used of the daughters of men, is to be thus determined.
5. The Bible conception of whoredom, as it becomes a symbolical designation of a falling away from God into idolatry, determines itselfnot solely by the outward mark, that is, as lacking the ritual of marriagebut also by the inward evidence as to whether the spirit-life sinks into sensuality through the sensual connection. And such a sexual life is here evidently intended. As the true marriage becomes a symbol of the connection between Jehovah and his people, because in its looking to the eternal it coheres with it in the generic bridal idea, so does the impure sexual connection become a symbol of apostasy, because it has in common with it the characteristic feature of unspirituality and carnality. It lies, therefore, in the very nature of the thing, that the first kind of sexual intercourse conducts to lawful marriage (the marriage-law), and conforms to the true and faithful in the chastity of the spirit, whilst the latter hates chastity and loves change.
6. Lust and cruelty are psychologically twin-forms, like despotism and mesalliance, or the harem life in all its forms. Jezebel, Athaliah, Herodias, are world-historical types. Women like these have shown themselves to be murderesses of the prophets. So, too, the authoress of Neros persecutions had to be his wife Poppa, a bigoted Jewish proselyte (see Lehman: Studies in the History of Apostolic Times. Greifswald, 1856). In this tendency of lust can we explain the common disobedience of degenerate sons towards their pious parents, the disowning of modest Sethite maidens in favor of Cainite beauties, the existence of polygamy and licentious disorder, and, everywhere, what is called the emancipation of the flesh. Therefore is it that this race is a prefiguring example of the antinomists of the last time (Matthew 24; Epistle of Jude; 2 Peter 2) From the violence of action, moreover, can we explain the oppression of the weak and miserable, and the spreading of infinite sorrow.
7. A physiologist might find it very conceivable, that the offspring of such unbridled lust, as exhibited in the intercourse of the hitherto unimpaired Sethites with the Cainite women, might be a race in whom bodily strength would present itself in an unusual degree, in connection with spiritual savageness. This, however, is doubted by Kurtz (Part 1, p. 82).
8. The first mention of the divine judicial office of the Spirit of God, Gen 6:3.
9. The first mention of worldly favor in instructive and warning significance, Gen 6:4.
10. In respect to Gods repentance, see above (comp. Num 23:19; 1Sa 15:29). A well-known school does not hesitate to bring into the idea of the divine being the conception of mutability, even in its relation to other questions (for example, the doctrine of Communicatio idiomatum). We should, however, always distinguish between symbolic and dogmatic anthropopathism. Besides, we must not confound the judgment of God, Gen 6:5, with the judgment of God, Gen 8:21.
11. Noah found grace. As innocent children died in the flood, and as, moreover, there may have been always individuals less guilty who nevertheless fell under the judgment, so does the grace in the exception of the pious Noah become still more conspicuous. But in Noah, moreover, the kernel, or root-stem of humanity, still remaining comparatively sound, was the subject of the divine mercy. The , the gracious, fair, and saving condescension, appears here for the first time in full distinctness. This showing grace to Noah in this world casts a ray of light upon the destiny of the innocent infant-world that sunk with the guilty, and of the race generally, as judged in the other world (see 1Pe 3:19; Gen 4:6).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The fall and perdition of the first human race in its detail: 1. Ungodly lust; 2. wanton deeds of violence; 3. the lawless commingling of the pious with the godless; 4. disdain of all warnings from the Holy Spirit, and impenitent obduracy in their sensual course.How the warnings of God die away unheard in a sinking race.The higher the stand-point the deeper the fall.The sanctifying of the true feeling of beauty in contrast with the wanton disposition.The sanctifying of the true hero-power in contrast with the wanton love of violence.The deep connection between carnality and cruelty.The sanctifying of marriage. The corrupting effects of unchastity. The contagious power of evil, especially of lust and injustice.Gods beholding it at all times.How the divine repenting reflects itself in the heart of the pious Noah.The godly mourning of the pious over the corruption of these times; its high significance: 1. as an animating sign of the divine compassion; 2. as a terrifying sign of the divine judgment.How man draws with him, in his doom, the surrounding natureeven in his corruption.The sufferings of children on account of their parents.The sufferings of the animal world on account of man.Noah the chosen of God: 1. As the prophet of the divine spirit and of its judgment upon the earth; 2. as the priest of his house and of a new humanity; 3. as a kingly hero in his steadfastness against a whole race.The grace of God, how it excepted one man, Noah, out of the common judgment.Grace for the one, in its effect grace for the many, that is, for the whole coming human race.The second ancestor a child of grace in the most special sense.The grace in its first manifestation, how all-powerful, and how wondrously saving.Noah found grace; therefore he must have sought it, as it sought and found him.In his eyes; consciousness of the grace of the all-knowing God as ever beholding him; this through his communion with God.
Starke: Gen 6:2. Luther: It is a great mercy when the Holy Spirit through its word punishes, and strives with, men; on the contrary, the highest disfavor and punishment when it is withdrawn and leaves the world unpunished.
Gen 6:3 : After the time God gave also to the Amorites four hundred years (Gen 15:16), to the Jews also, after the death of Christ, forty years, to Nebuchadnezzar one year (Dan 4:29), and to Ninevah forty days, for repentance.
Gen 6:4 : The security and carnality of men is a sign of Gods judgments drawing nigh (Mat 24:33-38).Evil examples (Book of Wis 4:12; Sir 13:1). Reckless and unlike marriages draw after them only clear perdition.The contempt of the divine word is the most grievous sin, for from it all others have their origin. How great the patience and long-suffering of God! The oppression of the poor and wretched is a great sin, and draws Gods judgment after it.
Gen 6:7 : Though the little ones are comprehended in the calamity, we must not, on that account, charge God with unrighteousness (he might have foreseen that they would tread in the footsteps of their parents, or he may have taken them without prejudice to their souls blessedness).
Gen 6:8. Luther: This way of speaking excludes merit and extols faith.Schrder: The fall first begins its course in the sphere of Adam and Eves single personality, then, by and with Cain it enters into the family life, thence showing itself in the members of a whole line, it now reaches its last stage of antediluvian development; it advances to the fall of a world.
Gen 6:1-2. Herder: The more intimate they are, the nearer they live together, the more do they infect each other with their breath, and defile each other with their disease; each becomes to the other the instrument of a more multiplied and subtle evil. All great kingdoms, states, and cities are still mournful evidences of this fact.Calvin: By such a title of honor (sons of God) Moses upbraids them with their unthankfulness, in that, forsaking their heavenly father, they become outcasts, as it were, and expose themselves to ruin.Luther: The flood comes not on this account merely, that the race of Cain was corrupt and evil, but because the race of the righteous, who had believed God, had fallen into idolatry. So God does not hasten the last day because heathen, Jews, and Turks are godless, but because, by means of the Pope, and the fanatics, the church itself has become full of errors.From all, that is, whom they loved, took they to themselves wives. That would be the love of diversity. Or, before all, namely, that to them the female race (the sex without discrimination) had become everything. The worth or unworthiness of the person came not into consideration. Probably it was incest; it was certainly polygamy. Luther: They disdained the simplicity, seriousness, and modest deportment of their young women, which had attracted the holy patriarchs, not amorously, but chastely, and suffered themselves to be pleased with the fondlings, the adorning, and the wantoning that proceeded from the latter (that is, the Cainite) race.
Gen 6:3. Calvin: Moses represents God himself as speaking; thereby would it become more certain that that punishment was as righteous as it was fearful.Luther: (The judging (or striving) of the spirit relates to a public office in the church, or the preaching of the truth, perhaps to a censure pronounced by Methuselah or Lamech). They are the words of an anxious heart; according to the language of Scripture, God is troubled, that is, the heart of the holy people which is full of love to every man. Such sorrow is properly the sorrow of the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30).The same: When the spirit of doctrine is gone there departs also the spirit of prayer.Calvin: As long as God holds back punishment he contends, to a certain extent, with men, especially if he would draw them to repentance by threatenings, or with light chastenings by way of example. Now he declares, as though in weariness, that he desires no longer to contend.Berlenburger Bible: Where the Spirit of God is, there it condemns sin. His presence and his discipline are inseparable (Book of Wisdom 12)The same: Let no one believe that he can do without such a chastening of the Almighty. We see it in little children.Calvin: This contempt of God gave birth to pride, and, pride full blown, they began to break every yoke. They glorified themselves in their deeds of shame, and became robbers of renown, so called.The same: That was the first nobility in the world; so that no one might please himself with a longer or more renowned series of ancestors.The same: There is nothing in itself to be condemned in the desire of celebrity, it is useful that rank should have place in the world; yet, as inordinate ambition ever deserves blame, so, when there is added to it the tyrannical cruelty of the more powerful, in their scorn of the weak, it becomes an intolerable evil.
Gen 6:5-7. Roos: Before, the flood of sins; after it, the sin-flood. Without a doubt has God impressed this feeling upon his saints, though no one in a human way is capable of it, according to its true divine nature. Wrath is proper for a king and a magistrate, but pain (for sin) is peculiar to the Creator, who has love for his creature, and before whose eyes that creature stands as one utterly corrupt, unthankful, and apostate.The same: A destruction of man and beast must be their end. But, whether this destruction is to be through water or through fire, God has not yet in these words revealed.
Gerlach: The Sethites are here presented as a warning to the Israelites. God allows no one of his greater judgments to take place without giving a respite for repentance after its announcement. Luthers interpretation takes the repentance and the grieving as the same with that which precedes in the genuine children of God. (Examples which Luther presents: Abrahams prayer for Sodom; Samuels sorrow for Saul; Christs weeping over Jerusalem.)
Lisco: Flesh; that is, a people wholly sunk in sin. Despise not thy day of grace.
Calver (Manual): When members of the true church become degenerate, the judgments of God are not distant.The Nephilim: Despising God above; exercising violence and oppression towards their brethren below. Now are these names unknown, like the names of many others who have sought for empty fame. In the heathen world there are such people as heroes, men honored as demigods; and truly there lie in these and other early indications of Moses, the fountains of many of the heathen legends concerning the gods. (The demigods of the heathen are, in fact, the heroes of humanity, such as Hercules, for example; but they have, doubtless, an original national origin for the most part which does not go back beyond the flood.)Noah, the one righteous man in an entire corrupt world.The eyes of the Lord are upon those who fear him.Taube (p. 48): The judgment of God upon the first world a warning example for our time: 1. In respect to the first world being ripe for judgment; 2. in respect to the manner in which God executed this sentence.Michow: This is the very climax of corruption, when men will not suffer themselves to be reproved by the spirit of God. The repenting of God (see Num 23:19). It denotes Gods dealing with men, which, though at all times just, must correspond to the behavior of men.
Footnotes:
[1][Gen 6:3.. Of this there have been nearly as many interpretations as of . It may mean the spirit of God generally, as the mind of God; it may mean the Holy Spirit as a power or influence, or, in the New Testament sense, as a person. It has been interpreted as the spirit or life of man, which God calls (my spirit), because given by him (as in Psalms 104 and Ecclesiastes 12, before referred to). This latter view may have two modifications: 1. as the life generally, or taken for or ; or, 2. in the higher sense of , according to the trichotomythe higher or rational power in man, and more nearly allied to the divinethe reason as distinguished from the sense, and from the mere inductive intellect judging by sense, and for the sense. The decision between these depends on the context, on the force of , and the true meaning of ; also, on the question whether, taken as a whole, it is the language of a judgment or of a prediction on which the judgment is grounded. On this see the Exegetical and Notes.T. L.]
[2][Gen 6:3. . This word has given rise to a great variety of interpretations. The most unsatisfactory, as well as the farthest from the Hebrew usage, is that of Gesenius, who renders it, non humiliabitur, my spirit shall not be humbled, or become vile, in man, regarding it as cognate with the Arabic )( . There is not a trace of such a sense anywhere else in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is directly opposed to the strong sense of power, superiority, as it appears in the frequent , lord, master, , judicial conflict, and the name of Deity, , Dominus. Compare also , Job 19:29, judicium. The other form , if it is not rather an abbreviated Hiphil of , has always this ruling judicial sense, and corresponds to the other Arabic verb )( . The Arabic verb may have come from this by acquiring a modified passive sense. It may be said, too, that the view of Gesenius is out of harmony with the whole spirit of the Scriptures. There is no such thought in the Bible as Gods spirit being humbled by dwelling or striving with men. Its philosophy is all the other way: Gods strength is made perfect in our weakness. The LXX. have rendered it, , shall not remain; the Vulgate the same, non permanebit; the Syriac in like manner, , shall not dwell. The LXX. and the Syriac were probably influenced by some early Jewish Targum, since Onkelos gives it substantially the same sense, , though he paraphrases the passage. The interpretation of has been much influenced by the interpreters view of following, as denoting the natural life, the spirit or soul which God had given men (see Psa 104:29-30; Ecc 12:7), and they have accordingly given any general sense that, whilst harmonizing with such view, would not be opposed to the radical idea of ruling judicially. Hence we need not regard these old interpreters as having read or , as some have supposed. Another view which is found in some of the Jewish commentators would refer to the spirit, mind, or disposition of God generally, represented as occupied with the care of man, and, as it were, wearied with it. So Rashi: my spirit within me shall not be disturbed on account of man. Another very strange one mentioned by Aben Ezra connects with the rare noun , meaning a sheath (1Ch 21:27), as though the body were the sheath of the spiritshall not always be insheathed, or insheath itselffrom the root and they refer to the Aramaic of Dan 7:15, my spirit was grieved, , within my bodyliterally, within the sheath. But this interpretation, besides being etymologically false, is too far-fetched and inconsistent with the simplicity of the early language. The Arabic translation (Arabs Erpenii) renders it , to be wholly occupied with, according to the view of Rashi above.T. L.]
[3][Gen 6:3.. All the old authorities, versions, commentaries, etc., take this, as it is rendered in E. V., as equivalent to , in that also, or because also. Thus the LXX., ; Vulg., quia; Syriac, ; Onkelos, ; Jonath. . The Arabic of the Polyglotts, Arabs Erpenii, . . So also the modern versions until very lately. The excellent Arabic version made by our American missionaries, and lately printed, has followed the most modern commentaries and lexicographers, (rashly, we think,) and rendered it , because of his declination, or straying, he is flesh. The objection made by Gesenius and Rosenmller to the abbreviation for , that it belongs to the later Hebrew, has little weight. There are examples in the oldest books, and the conformity of the writing to the pronunciation is rather a mark of earlier orthography, though it may be afterwards imitated, for brevity, in the later Rabbinical writings. There can hardly be a doubt that or , basshaggam, would give about the actual pronunciation (especially if rapid) of if written in fullbaashergam, basshargamin which the semi-vowel sound of would become very feeble and disappear, as is the case with in other combinations, so that shargam would become shaggam; the duplication by the dagesh compensating for the lost . And this would answer the question why it is not more frequent in the early books. It is not the settled use of for (which is a mere orthographical abbreviation of becoming constant in later and Rabbinical writing), but only a following the pronunciation in a peculiarly harsh combination that seldom occurs. The patach in place of the segol () is explained by the Jewish grammarians, who, as their rich phonetic system clearly shows, understood these matters as well as the modern philologists. The last syllable is lengthened by the tone, and the compensating dagesh requires the sharpening of the preceding one. An objection to the view of Gesenius and others is, that such a use of the infinitive of (if it can be regarded as an infinitive) is unexampled in the Hebrew. Besides, this verb or noun, as employed elsewhere, is always used of the more venial errors, or trespasses, and is, therefore, unsuited to the greatness and malignity of the sins here denounced. It may be said, moreover, that , with the plural third person pronoun immediately preceding, is an ungrammatical anomaly.T. L.]
[4][Gen 6:4., Nephilim. The derivation of this word from , to fall, cannot be sustained, either in the sense of fallen (from heaven), or in that of invaders (, those who fall onirruentes). It is evidently the ancient name they took to themselves, and that would not be, in the beginning, a name either of degeneracy or reproach. Its connection with ,, is much more clear and consistent. Compare the Niphal, Psa 139:14, , and (contracted ); also Exo 33:16, , and I and thy people shall be distinguished above all people. When it became a proper name, or (Niphlim) would easily be changed to (Nephilim), the shewa becoming movable in the frequent use. Thus viewed, we may regard the expression at the end of the verse, , as the intended exegesis of the word itself, distinguished men; , wonderful menmen of namemen of renown. That the same name should have been given afterwards to gigantic robbers, as in Num 13:33, is very natural, whether regarded as applied from a tradition of these wonderful men of old or from inherent fitness. , and also afterwardsclearly intimating that some of these Nephilim, or wondrous men of violence, had existed before this event, or from of old (a time comparatively ancient, going back to the days of old Cain), and that after these mesalliances, whatever they may be, there was an increase of such persons.T. L.]
[5][Gen 6:6.. LXX., ; Vulg., Pnituit eum. The Syriac and Arabic make it the repentance of grief; the Samaritan version strangely renders it , iratus fuit, he was fiercely enraged, making it the repentance of anger. Both the Targums say: , and Jehovah repented, but qualify it by followingthat is, in his word, or by his word. What they meant by this is not very clear, but it is one of the methods they take of avoiding the seeming anthropopathisms of the Old Testament, of which the Jewish translators, paraphrasts, and commentators, seem to have been more afraid than the Christian. Farther, see Exegetical and Notes.T. L.]
[6][Gen 6:6. . The LXX. give no translation of this, or they have softened it into . The Targums also leave it out, and put in its place a mere paraphrastic repetition of what follows. Among the Jewish commentators Aben Ezra worthily calls attention to its contrast with the language Gen 1:31. It is the opposite, he says, of Gods rejoicing in his works, now that evil has so grossly come in and marred it all. See Exegetical and Notes.T. L.]
[7]This Discussion has been somewhat abridged by the Translator.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Contents
This chapter relates to us the evil effects of sin, and the sure consequences which follow; the wages of which, is, and must be, death. The abounding iniquity of mankind, and God’s just determination to take vengeance thereof by an universal destruction. The distinguishing mercy of God, in the salvation of His people, in times of general visitation, is here beautifully represented, in the case of Noah and his family. God’s compassion to the brute species, in providing for their preservation. Noah, in obedience to the Divine command, prepares an ark, to the saving of his house.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Lesson of the Tower
Gen 6:4
The form of this story belongs to the early stages of an ascending scale of civilization. The soul of the narrative is for all time. Take one obvious aspect of that soul. The builders of city and tower were men of great ambition. They would dare high things and they would do them. This is well, for God made us all for ambition. But it is part of the tragedy of our humanity that each day we are tempted to sully ambition with some phase of latent or expressed selfishness. Ambition tainted by egotism ever makes for futility.
I. A Theological Application This is an age of controversy. Controversy means movement, not always spiritual movement, but still movement, and all movement wisely directed becomes progress. When with the vision that trembles not because it has focused itself upon the living Christ we look out upon the area of theological controversy, what see we? We see many things, and among them we discern a mighty building of Towers. All the builders are our brethren; and we can afford to look at them with the eyes of love, and to bestow upon them the discriminating criticism that brothers ever offer to one another.
II. The Spirit of Empire. In the light of that lesson, let us look at our Empire beyond the seas and let us glance at things at home. We can only expect to justify empire by rising to the level of the duties it suggests. As certainly as a mere race selfishness dominates our colonial policy the plans of God will be thwarted, and later centuries will see this nation fall Babel-like to confusion and the dust. Let the tower teach us that you cannot build selfishly and also build permanently.
III. Individual Spirituality. We are sincere in our efforts after the spiritual life. Yet the tower totters, and is in danger of falling, because at the centre of our high desires there is often so much of subtle egotism. There are people whose desire for heaven is merely self-preservation veneered with seeming spirituality. The fact remains that so long as in our religious life we are seeking something for ourselves rather than something for Christ and the people, we are in danger of repeating the experience of Babel. Learn from Babel that he only builds well who builds unselfishly.
The Sinfulness of Sin (for Sexagesima Sunday)
Gen 6:5
We have four passages of Scripture put before us on Sexagesima Sunday which teach us the exceeding sinfulness of sin.
First of all we have the Gospel, which is the parable of the sower. It teaches us how much it matters whether the seed, the Word of God, sinks into our souls. It teaches us how serious the hinderances are which interfere with the sinking in of the seed, the Word of God, into our hearts. And that teaching, I am sure, is much needed, because one of the terrible signs of today is that so many people are going about saying and thinking that nothing very much matters sin does not matter, it will be all the same a thousand years hence. But it does very much matter, and I want you to apply it to yourself. What are the hinderances in your heart to the seed, the Word of God, sinking in and becoming fruitful?
And then there is the Epistle, and that, you remember, is the account of St. Paul’s sufferings. What does that great list of sufferings tell us? It speaks of the fact of what St. Paul felt about our Lord Jesus Christ and the great deliverance that He had wrought for him. St. Paul was a man who felt down to the depths of his inmost soul that to Jesus Christ he owed his salvation, that he owed to Him a great deliverance deliverance from sin, deliverance from eternal death. Why do we lead such easy lives? Why is it that we dislike the least pain or the least trouble we have to endure for our religion? Because we do not realize, as St. Paul did, the great deliverance that is offered us in Jesus Christ. We have nothing approaching to St. Paul’s sense of sin.
And then to fill up this lesson we have God’s judgment on sin given to us in the first lesson for the, morning and the first lesson for this evening, the third and sixth chapters of Genesis. The third chapter, you will remember, is the account of the Fall and God’s punishment of our first parents; and this evening’s lesson is the picture of the Flood, the great judgment of God upon the world of the ungodly, a picture intended, beyond question, by God to teach us the awfulness of sin and God’s anger against it, and the awful consequences of sin.
I. Do we Fear Sin? Now do we fear sin as we ought? I do not think so. I think that we are much more inclined to believe that sin does not matter, and that it will be all right in the end. We have to remember the awful possibility which hangs over every man and woman of hardening themselves into habits which become incompatible with God and God’s Presence, which become eternal sin, and therefore eternally excluding from the Presence of God.
II. The Greatness of the Deliverance. The seriousness of sin is shown again by the greatness of God’s means for deliverance from sin. In the Old Testament we have His picture of the Ark, the building of the Ark, the tremendous labour that the work must have cost. The greatness of God’s work for our deliverance is the measure of the greatness of sin from which He works to deliver. But if that picture in the Old Testament of the means that God takes to deliver us is great, what shall we say of the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ? Could any greater means be imagined than the sending of the only Begotten Son from the bosom of the Father to be a man amongst men, to live the life and die the death on the Cross? Could any means be imagined greater? The supreme greatness of Calvary is always and must be the measure to the world of the terrible greatness and awfulness of sin which crucified the Son of God. It is impossible when we think of it like that to treat sin lightly, as so many do in the present day. Never say ‘I cannot help it,’ and ‘it does not matter’. You can help it, and it does matter. The sins that you give way to habitually matter terribly. I know they matter because sin has made me other than God meant me to be. If I had never sinned I should have been much better, more useful in the world. And I not only see sin in myself, but I see its ravages in others. I see how sin has pulled down other people; I see it all about me, and I can not underrate it, and think it does not matter it does matter. Pray, then, for godly fear, and deal with sin in yourselves, so that you may be able to help others.
III. Lead to the Saviour. Surely that is the ambition of every man and woman, to be able to help their fellows, and to guide them to the Saviour. And the first step in leading people to the Saviour is to make them feel their need of that Saviour; and they never will feel the need of the Saviour unless they feel how terrible sin is.
References. VI. 5. J. Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 138. C. Perren, Outlines of Sermons, p. 306. VI. 6. H. Bonar, Short Sermons for Family Reading, pp. 293 and 302. VI. 8. R. S. Candlish, Book of Genesis, vol. i. p. 108.
Noah the Renewer
Gen 6:9
For the first time we are confronted with the idea of reform. Noah is not the first to protest, but he is the first to reform. With Noah, there begins the first of a series of efforts to save the world to translate, not the man, but the earth. He is the sad spectator of a scene of moral corruption. His heart is heavy with the burden of a degenerate race.
I. What was this vision of corruption which Noah saw? The greatest danger that can meet a human soul the danger of mistaking evil for good. This race had fixed upon the physical development as the one end in life. They had enthroned in their imagination the men of bone and sinew. They had come to look upon meekness, mercy, compassion, as unmanly things.
II. The original aim of Noah was to avert the Flood. He was not a prophet in any other sense than Jonah was a prophet. He was not magically to foretell the evitable occurrence of an event. Rather was he to proclaim that its occurrence was not inevitable that it might or might not happen according to the righteousness of the community. The ark of safety which he proposed to build for the world was at no time the ark of gopher wood. The ark of gopher wood was never meant for the safety of the world, but, as the writer to the Hebrews says: ‘For the saving of his own house’. It was only to be used when the world refused to be saved.”
III. The characteristic of the life of Noah is solitary waiting.
( a ) We first see the man in the midst of the world, lifting a solitary protest against the life of that world. His faith watching and waiting for the dawn.
( b ) The man is lifted above the world. He is floated in the air in a lively sea. But even in this vast solitude this human soul is waiting for an earth renewed.
( c ) The world has arisen baptized from its corruption. The old life is past but the new is not yet come. And there stands Noah solitary, waiting still. The new life has not come, but hope has dawned.
G. Matheson, The Representative Men of the Bible, p. 89.
References. VI. 9. C. Kingsley, Village Sermons, p. 74. R. S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis. VI. 9-22. A. Maclaren, Expositions Genesis, p. 48, vol. i. p. 127. VI. 13. J. Parker, Adam, Noah, and Abraham, p. 35.
The Obedience of Faith
Gen 6:22
God told Noah how He was going to punish the sin of man by a flood, and told him also of the means by which he should be saved.
I. God seldom punishes without warning us of the punishment which is coming.
II. Noah believed God’s words, and showed that he believed them by setting to work at once to build the ark. It would be very difficult to find any greater lesson than the importance of acting on our belief.
III. This will lead us especially to three things:
( a ) To take great pains to keep all the rules of the Church.
( b ) To pray with faith and to act on our prayers.
( c ) To repent of our sins. Repentance requires an act of will. A repentance which stops short at being sorry for what we have done wrong is as useless as a faith which does not lead us to act upon our belief.
IV. We learn from Noah the importance of a life in which our actions really represent our convictions.
( a ) Its importance to ourselves since it was by building the Ark that Noah found a refuge and was saved.
( b ) Its importance to others since it was by building the Ark that Noah witnessed to the world that he believed God’s message of warning.
A. G. Mortimer, Stories from Genesis, p. 81.
Reference. VI. 22. G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 883.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Noah’s Flood
Gen 6:13
This is exactly the tone of the creative chapters of the Bible. It is important to remember this, as showing that God’s sovereignty has two distinct but consistent operations, it creates, and it destroys, and the creature may not say, What doest thou? It is important, too, to remember that no middle point is proposed between creation and destruction; and as the one is taken literally, so the other must be taken in its plain and obvious meaning: when God “creates,” he gives existence; when God “destroys,” he takes existence away. It is in this view that I regard the narrative upon the consideration of which we are now entering as singularly important viz., as showing the Divine sovereignty in creation and destruction. Let us look at the narrative and see what we can of God’s method, that we may see how he ripens and executes his severest purposes.
It is happily clear that God is moved by what we would call moral considerations, and not by arbitrary impulse, in his government of mankind. The man who does an action simply to please himself is said to act arbitrarily; the action is not founded upon argument or reason, and is therefore arbitrary. In this case God gives his reasons, and discloses every step in the process of his pathetic and mournful argument. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” That is the basis of action. God’s purpose in creating man had been frustrated; its frustration involved the ruin of man, as if by a suicidal act. God, therefore, seeing that ruin must come, acted judicially, as in the first instance he had acted creatively. The question would seem to have been simply this: “Shall sin be left to kill the human race slowly, as if inch by inch, without my asserting judicial rights, or shall I distinctly interpose, as I did in Eden, and bring judgment down upon iniquity?” We ourselves would say, with all humility and reverence, that God was bound to take the second course, if be was to protect not only his own dignity, but the integrity of truth and righteousness. In this act we have on a large scale what in Eden we had on a small scale a determination on the part of God to destroy evil; and by destroying evil I do not mean locking it up by itself in a moral prison, which shall be enlarged through ages and generations until it shall become the abode of countless millions of rebels, but its utter, final, everlasting extinction, so that at last the universe shall be “without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing” the pure home of a pure creation.
But what is the meaning of there being no middle point between creation and destruction? Does it mean that there is no effort on the part of God to save man? It means nothing of the kind. God has never ceased to make this effort until he himself has proved the hopelessness of making it. In this very narrative the law of his working is most clearly defined: “My spirit shall not always strive with man.” Many curious interpretations have been given of these words, but none, to my mind, so satisfactory as the one which is most obvious. It may be expressed thus: Man shall not die without remonstrance; i will plead with him; I will ply him with every consideration that can move his conscience and his heart; and not until hope is utterly extinguished will I release him from the importunity of my love. Thus, man is not coldly allowed to die: he is besought, importuned, urged; and by his own uncontrollable madness alone does he rush upon everlasting destruction.
In this chapter we see Divine forbearance exhausted. A very tender expression is here employed: “It grieved the Lord at his heart that he had made man on the earth.” The apostle says, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” By putting the two expressions together, we see the wonderful unity of the Bible history and of human nature in all ages. We raise many curious questions about Divine providence, but there is one which ought to arrest our attention, perhaps more gravely than any other Why did God create a creature that had the power to grieve him? It is because out of such power there comes the ability to worship and to serve God, and out of worship and service there comes a blessed progress in all purity and nobleness of life.
The Almighty is about to do here what some of us in our imperfect wisdom have often wished to see done: we have supposed that if all notoriously bad people could be removed at a stroke from the world the kingdom of heaven would be at once established on the earth. The idea may be put roughly thus: Bring together all prisoners, all idlers, drunkards, thieves, liars, and every known form of criminal; take them out into the middle of the Atlantic and sink them there, and at once society will be regenerated, and paradise will be regained. Now this is substantially the very course which the Almighty took in the days of Noah, with what results we know only too well. All our fine theories have been tested, and they come to nothing. The tree of manhood has been cut down to the very root, and it has been shown in every possible way that the root itself must be cured if the branches are to become strong and fruitful. If you were today to destroy all the world, with the single exception of one household, and that household the most pious and honourable that ever lived, in less than half a century we should see all the bad characteristics returning. Water cannot drown sin. Fire cannot burn out sin. Prisons cannot cure theft and cruelty. We must go deeper.
In the meantime it was well to try some rough experiments, merely for the sake of showing that they were not worth trying. If the Flood had not been tried there are some reformers amongst us who would have thought of that as a lucky idea, and wondered that it had never occurred to the Divine mind! After all, it is a very elementary idea. It is the very first idea that would occur to a healthy mind: the world is a failure, man is a criminal and a fool, sin is rampant in the land; very well; that being the case, drown the world. There are persons who seriously ask, Do you think the Flood ever did occur? and there are others who find shells on hill-tops and show them in proof of a universal deluge. O fools and slow of heart! This Flood is occurring every day; this judgment upon sin never ceases; this protection of a righteous seed is an eternal fact! How long shall we live in the mere letter and have only a history instead of a revelation, a memorandum book instead of a living Father? That there was a flood exactly as is described in the Bible I have not so much as a shadow of a doubt; but even if I took it as an allegory, or a typical judgment given in parable, I should seize the account as one that is far more profoundly true than any mere fact could ever be. Look at it! God morally angry, righteousness asserted, sin judged, goodness preserved, evil destroyed, it is true; it must be true; every honest heart demands that it be taken as true.
As we have a moral reason for the destruction of the earth, so we have a moral reason for the preservation of Noah. Observe this closely, so as to escape the idea that there is anything capricious or whimsical in the Divine government “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” ( Gen 6:9 ). Of his great-grandfather, Enoch, the same testimony was borne, “he walked with God.” This man who so walked was spared. The judgments of God are not mere violences; they keep their course by a law at once merciful and terrible: they spare the good, they overpass the house sprinkled with blood, they throw down no holy altar. How calmly those judgments come! They seem indeed to come suddenly, but they really come up from eternity: slowly, surely, irresistibly! It is something to be able to challenge the severest inquiry into the moral reason of this solemn transaction, something to be able to say that, in all the severity of his judgments, God never mingles the righteous and the wicked in one indiscriminating punishment.
What a rain it was! “All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened, and the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights”; still the torrents came, and the great cataracts, so that men knew not the dry land from the sea; “and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth”; they rose to the high windows, and the billows dashed upon the drenched roofs like angry seas; and men fled away to the mountains and watched the cruel pursuer from afar; and still it rose, obliterating their footsteps, and rising quickly like one impelled by mighty anger to seek the prey; the wolf, the lion, the leopard stood upon the crags, baying and roaring with fury that drove them mad, and high above the surging deep there screamed the affrighted eagle and the vulture, enraged by hunger: at last there was but one hill top left, and there the strongest and fiercest of the sons of men gathered, and there were heard prayers, and oaths, and curses, and cries that made the wild beasts quiet; and still the cold waters rose, the lightning at midnight showed the dreary waste on which no stars glittered, and amid thunders that shook the universe the last strong man plunged into the infinite gulf! “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” Oh, what a rain it was! What an outlook from the window of the ark! For many a long day no eye could venture to look out of that window; for who could bear to see the grey-haired man, and the fair woman, and the little child doomed to die! Who can steadfastly look upon the judgments of God, or bear the flash of his uplifted sword? “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
“The waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.” Then came the time of release. “God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged.” At the end of forty days after, the tops of the mountains were seen; Noah opened the window of the ark and sent forth a raven; then he sent forth a dove, but the dove returned; a week after he sent out the dove again, and the dove returned in the evening with “an olive leaf pluckt off.” In another week he sent forth the dove once more, and the dove came not again. And soon after the ark was broken up, and “Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and the Lord smelled a sweet savour”; and thus a new beginning was made. We seem now to have a new Adam and a new Eve. How they will turn out remains to be seen. They have a great advantage over the original pair, for they have a solemn history behind them. They can never forget the surge that beat and dashed furiously against the ark; never can they forget that last lightning that flashed past the window, like an angel of destruction, and seemed to shake a sword threateningly in their own faces; never can these things be forgotten! Noah will do better than Adam, and make us grieve that the experiment of humanity was not begun with this noble and incorruptible man! We shall see.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XIII
CAUSES OF THE DELUGE
Gen 6:1-22
1. Nature and grounds of man’s race title to the earth.
2. Light and help for maintaining title.
3. Limit at which title lapses.
4. Gradual approach to the limit (Gen. 4-5).
5. Limit passed by worldwide race corruption (Gen 6:1-6 ; Gen 6:11-12 ).
6. Worldwide race destruction announced (Gen 6:7 ; Gen 6:13 ).
7. Respite of mercy or space for repentance (Gen 6:3 ; 1Pe 3:19-20 ).
8. Means for preservation of race remnant for new beginning (Gen 6:14-22 ).
In the study of Gen 1:26-28 , we have already considered, somewhat, man’s race title to the earth. In Gen 3 , we have considered man’s forfeiture of this title by violation of its conditions, but also learned how that by intervention of grace forfeiture was not declared, but held in abeyance under the conditions of a new probation.
Now in view of the impending race catastrophe set forth in this lesson, resulting from another lapse of title by violation of the new grace conditions, it is fitting to carefully restate the first item of the outline, viz.:
NATURE AND GROUNDS OF MAN’S RACE TITLE TO THE EARTH It was never an absolute title arising from man’s sovereignty, but always in subordination to God. His title was that of tenant or steward of a divine Sovereign. In the garden of Eden he was a tenant of his Creator-landlord, under a covenant of works whose conditions of forfeiture of title were expressed in the law concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By the intervention of grace after his fall he became the tenant of a Saviour-landlord under a covenant of grace expressed by the law of propitiatory sacrifices then and there appointed. So that we may summarize the conditions of his race title under these heads:
(1) He holds as steward or tenant of God. When the tenant disregards his relations toward God the title is vitiated and he may be evicted by summary process at the will of the real owner.
(2) He must multiply and fill the earth, yet within the divine laws of multiplication. Multiplication by illegal methods is not obedience to this condition.
(3) He must subdue the earth and develop its resources, yet in lawful ways and with lawful ends in view. The building of cities by Cain’s descendants, or their construction of tents, or invention of musical instruments, or implements of industry, etc., these are innocent per se, but if perverted to ends of alienation from God, this is not obedience to the condition.
In entering upon the study of the sixth chapter of Genesis, we must, therefore, bear in mind two things: First, that we are not considering the individual but the race title to the earth. Second, that this title is now held not under the conditions of Adam’s original probation, but under the conditions of grace probation, which intervened to suspend lapse of title by Adam’s disobedience. The divine relations are now expressed in expiatory laws. Keeping these essential points in mind, we are prepared to advance to the second division of the outline:
LIGHT AND HELP FOR MAINTAINING TITLE It has always been an interesting inquiry, What gospel light had the world before the flood? The briefness of the narrative has led many to underestimate the degree of this light. By so much as this light is underestimated, by that much is the mind inclined to revolt at the wholesale and stupendous catastrophe and to impugn the divine goodness. But a fair comparison of this brief record with later scriptures makes it evident that this light was very great and well understood by the antediluvians. They did not fall through ignorance, but by willful, deliberate, and persistent transgression. It is conceded on all hands that they had the external light of nature (Psa 19:1-6 ; Rom 1:18-20 ; Act 14:17 ), and its internal light of conscience (Rom 2:15 ). But this is not gospel light and could not avail to salvation after the fall. So the question recurs, What gospel light had they? In briefest outline this light consisted in:
(1) The promise of a Redeemer (Gen 3:15 ) who would save them from the defilement, guilt, and penalty of sin. Adam understood the promise, for he called his wife Eve, that is, mother of life (Gen 3:20 ). That Eve understood is indicated by her expression at the birth of her first-born (Gen 4:1 ).
(2) A throne of mercy was established at a definite place where sinful man might approach God by a new and living” way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24 ). “God dwelt between the Cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, as a Shekinah, to keep open the way to the tree of life.”
(3) He instituted expiatory sacrifices as a means of approach to this throne (Gen 3:21 ; Gen 4:3-4 ). Adam and Eve must have thoroughly understood, for we find their children instructed in regard to sacrifices, and that God in a perfectly intelligible way signified his approval or disapproval of their worship (Gen 4:4-5 ; Heb 11:4 ). When Cain willfully misunderstood, Jehovah from his throne of grace patiently expostulated, and re-explained (Gen 4:6-7 ). Cain understood God as well as you understand now in a face to face conversation with your earthly parents.
(4) The mark or sign of Cain, whatever it was, had to be conspicuous and instantly recognizable in order to avail in protecting Cain from the summary vengeance of all who met him. But such a sign would be a perpetual and visible memorial of his sin and a mighty preacher to warn against its repetition. It would be the most talked about thing in the world, more striking and comment-inspiring than the Pyramids of Egypt.
(5) Sabbath privileges, or a set time of worship (Gen 2:1-3 ; Gen 4:3 ).
(6) The brightest and surest light of tradition the world has ever known. It was best and surest because of the longevity of the early Christians and because the whole race was close together, not yet having been dispersed over a wide area. Only two lives were sufficient to reach the deluge, Adam, and Methuselah. For 930 years the first man, the head of the race, was living and approachable, able to tell, as doubtless he did a thousand times, of his wonderful history and more wonderful relations with God. Then this longevity provided for verification of testimony by the long overlapping of lives of great contemporaries. The power of this tradition in the testimony of the first man may be inferred from the fact that the rapid and awful approaches to the race doom were after his death. The brightness and accuracy of the tradition is further evident from the fact that Lamech, the fifth generation from Cain, remembered and cited the Almighty’s exemption of Cain from the punishment of man.
(7) The ministry and example of associated godly people (Gen 4:26 ).
(8) Revelations and warnings through specially commissioned prophets like Enoch (Jud 1:14 ).
(9) The supernal light of Enoch’s translation (Gen 5:24 ; Heb 11:5 ).
(10) Preachers of righteousness like Noah (2Pe 2:5 ; 1Pe 4:6 ).
(11) The ministry of the Holy Spirit (Gen 6:3 ; 1Pe 3:19 ).
(12) Special space for repentance after announcement of destruction (Gen 6:3 ; 1Pe 3:20 ).
Here are twelve distinct elements of external, gospel light.
LIMIT AT WHICH RACE TITLE TO THE EARTH LAPSES Here the light of subsequent revelations helps greatly to illumine the brief statements of our lesson. From a vast number of these later scriptures it is necessary to cite only a few as examples to guide us safely in determining the limit, under the grace probation, at which the race title to the earth is forfeited.
Our Saviour declares that his people are the salt of the earth and adds: “But if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men” (Mat 5:13 ).
Ten righteous men could have saved Sodom and Gomorrah, but there was only one (Gen 18:32 ).
Says Jehovah to the prophet Ezekiel, “Son of man, when a land sinneth against me by committing a trespass, and I stretch out my hand upon it, and break the staff of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord Jehovah” (Eze 14:13-14 ). And said the Lord to Jeremiah, “Then said Jehovah unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind would not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth. And it shall come to pass, when they shall say unto thee Whither shall we go forth? then thou shall tell them, Thus saith Jehovah: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for the famine, to the famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity. And I will appoint over them four kinds, saith Jehovah: the sword to slay, the dogs to tear, and the birds of the heavens, and the beasts of the earth, to devour and to destroy” (Jer 15:1-3 ).
And our context: “And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh” (Gen 6:3 ).
From these and kindred passages three things are evident:
(1) That God made his spiritual seed the conservators of the world. To the Jehovah worshippers he has committed the ministry of reconciling and preserving the earth.
(2) The efficacy of this reconciling and preserving power is vested in the Holy Spirit, who blesses their life and ministry by applying through regeneration and sanctification the benefits of the expiatory sacrifice.
(3) Whenever, therefore, and from whatever causes, there is brought about a reduction in the number of his people to such a minimum as to destroy the saving power of this ministry, and whenever and from whatever causes the world’s persistent despising of the Spirit’s grace brings about the withdrawal of the Holy One, then we may know that the measure of iniquity is full, and the race must perish from off the face of the earth.
So we may easily understand the limit: It is just where the salt of world preservation has so lost its quality of saltness, or become so reduced in quantity as to be powerless to affect so great a mass of corruption, or, leaving figures of speech and coming to plain words, it is just where God’s people become so worldly-minded as to nullify the force of their testimony, or so few in numbers that the sound of their testimony is lost in the World’s uproar of noises and the grieved and insulted Spirit is withdrawn.
GRADUAL APPROACH TO THE LIMIT Before considering the final causes of the destruction of the race as set forth in our lesson, let us briefly revert to the approximate causes developed in Genesis 4-5. As a double basis for race deterioration there was first, a nature depraved by the fall of Adam, and second, the activity, craftiness, and malignity of Satan as a tempter. From these were developed in practice:
The infidelity of Cain, that is, his rejection of the whole plan of the atonement, as if his nature was unfallen and he stood where Adam had stood in the garden of Eden, under a covenant of works, admitting indeed that he was a tenant of the Creator, but denying that he was a tenant under grace. Under the promptings of Satan he opened a way for all later infidels who deny that they need a Saviour, or that they need regeneration, or sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and consequently refuse to approach God through the expiation of a substitute.
By the murder of Abel, his brother, and the time which elapsed until Seth became a Christian, Cain’s descendants got much the start in numbers.
By his going away from the presence of Jehovah at the place of worship his descendants were separated from the means of grace, and so waxed worse and worse, willfully being without God, without a worship, and without a sabbath.
Through Lamech, one of his descendants, bigamy was introduced, violating the law of marriage. This precedent deepened and widened social corruption (Gen 4:19 ) and bigamy led to murder again (Gen 4:23 ), and as hinted later, to polygamy and a horde of murders (Gen 6:2-4 ). And so the way of Cain led ever downward with accumulated velocity into the deeper darkness.
LIMIT PASSED BY WORLDWIDE RACE CORRUPTION (Gen 6:1-5 )
“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose. And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh; yet shall his days be one hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown” (Gen 6:1-4 ).
The final causes of the deluge are here portrayed in vivid flashes of sublime brevity. We see how nearly all the salt lost its quality of saltness; how the quantity that retained its saltness was too small to overcome such a mass of corruption; how the grieved and insulted Spirit ceased his striving. Just here I must turn aside for a moment and dispose of some poisonous interpretations.
This paragraph has been made the occasion of the wildest vagaries of exposition ever generated by unbridled fancy and speculative criticism. Many books have been published in support of one or the other of two heretical theories. If you young preachers ever dip much into general reading you are sure to meet some of these books, advocating one of these theories. It is more than probable that agents for books advocating these theories may canvass your own communities and poison the minds of many of your congregations by the circulation of their evil literature. In such case you might be disposed to censure your Bible teacher if his silence left you without warning and without antidote for the poison. Somewhat hesitatingly therefore I venture to clear away the brush of these false interpretations before submitting what I conceive to be the true exposition. I say hesitatingly, for ofttimes it is best not to advertise evil by notice of it, but to trust rather to preoccupation of the ground by the good and true. So we now take up
First Evil Theory That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation between the Adamites made in God’s image, and pre-Adamites, who were a soulless generation of beasts though in human form, the highest connecting link between the man of Gen 1:26 , and the lower animals.
According to this theory the “sons of God” in our text were the Adamites and the “daughters of men” were female Negroes. This theory denies that any but the white race are children of Adam and proper subjects of gospel address, and so it vitally and practically affects the foreign mission enterprise. Just before and during the War Between the States it had many advocates both North and South. The belief was the product of a political exigency. Van Evrie, in the New York Day Book, a paper widely circulated in the South, published a series of articles to show, on scientific and historical grounds, that whites and blacks could not have a common race origin. Drs. Nott and Gliddon of Mobile advocated a similar theory, with labored argument, in a book entitled the Types of Mankind. Other books of like purport were written and published in Texas resting on the additional ground of scriptural argument.
This theory, so far as it is based on scientific grounds, that is, anatomy, physiology, and history, has been utterly abandoned. The danger now from teachers of science comes from the opposite extreme. They now not only concede that all men of whatever race or color had a common origin, but affirm that all life, whether vegetable, beast or man, had a common origin.
This complete somersault in scientific teaching within the memory of living men admonishes us to waste no time in trying to reconcile the Bible with the human science of today, lest tomorrow, when science changes again, we should be obliged to make another adjustment, and so on ad infinitum go far as the theory is based on Bible argument, it is opposed to the text and the whole trend of Scripture teaching relative to the unity of the races. The word translated “men” in our text means Adamites. The “daughters of men” means the daughters of Adamite. More plausible is the
Second Evil Theory
That the sin which provoked the flood was miscegenation between the angels and women. According to this theory “sons of God” means angels who intermarried with the daughters of men. The scriptural arguments on which this theory rests are:
Angels are often called the sons of God.
Some manuscripts of the Septuagint have “angels” in the text instead of “sons of God.”
Jud 1:6-7 are cited to show that the sin of the angels was giving themselves over to strange flesh like the Sodomites.
The giants, Nephilim, of Gen 4:4 , are angels.
The monstrous character of the offspring from this unnatural cohabitation is cited in support of the theory (Gen 4:4 ), latter clause. See a recent work of fiction, Man or Seraph. Reply
It is conceded that in the Scriptures angels are called sons of God, but never in Genesis.
The presence of “angels” instead of “sons of God” in some Septuagint manuscripts is not a translation of the Hebrew, but an Alexandrian interpretation substituted for the original.
The whole argument in Jude is based upon the assumption that the pronounn “these” in Jud 1:7 has for its antecedent the noun “angels” in Jud 1:6 , whereas a nearer antecedent may be found in Jud 1:7 , namely, “Sodom and Gomorrah.” With this nearer antecedent Jude would read: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, with these,” i.e., with Sodom and Gomorrah, not with the angels. Moreover the offense in Jud 1:7 is not the offense in Gen 6:2 . The latter is marriage, legal in itself.
“Nephilim,” or giants, neither here nor in Numbers 13 -33, means “angels.” This would be to have another offense of the angels after the flood.
The offspring of the ill-assorted marriage in Gen 6:2-4 , are not monsters in the sense of prodigies resulting from cross of species, but “mighty men,” men of renown.
“Sons of God” means the Sethites, or Christians, men indeed by natural generation, but also sons of God by regeneration. In Gen 4:26 , directly connected with this lesson, we have the origin of the name: “Then began men to be called by the name of the Lord.” This designation of Christians is common in both Testaments. I cite particularly Psa 82:6-7 , where we have precisely the same contrast between the regenerate and the unregenerate as in our lesson: “All of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless, ye shall die like men.”
The inviolable law of reproduction within the limits of species “after their kind” forbids the unnatural interpretation of this second theory.
According to our Lord himself the angels are sexless, without human passion, neither marrying nor giving in marriage (Luk 20:35 ).
With this disposition of the two evil theories, we resume the interrupted exposition. The offenses which so largely provoked the deluge are these:
Ill-assorted marriages of believers with infidels whereby their testimony for God was hampered and clouded. So the gait lost its savour. All through both Testaments the inexpediency of such marriages is reprobated. See the evil consequences avoided by Abraham in Isaac’s case (Gen 24:3-4 ) and by Isaac in Jacob’s case (Gen 28:1 ), and the evil consequences entailed in the cases of Ishmael and Esau. Compare Ezr 10 , and Neh 13 , with the law in Exo 34:15-16 , and Deu 7:3 . When we come to study the later history of Israel in Kings and Chronicles the examples of these evil marriages will be found to multiply. In the New Testament we need to cite only 2Co 6:14-17 : “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you.”
With this passage, compare latter clause of 1Co 7:39 .
The sins of the sons of God consisted in entering the sacred marriage relation under the promptings of mere desire for beauty, regardless of the effect on their holy mission as world preservers.
The expression, “all that they chose,” seems to imply the sin of polygamy. The bigamy of Lamech had thus become polygamy with the sons of Seth.
The result was that the offspring took after the mother instead of the father, full of worldly ambition, becoming “Mighty men, men of renown.” Military glory and worldly fame was their god. In this way every source of gaining recruits to the Christian army was cut off. When the old Christians died there were no young ones to take their place. So the salt diminished in quantity until Noah was left alone.
In the meantime some of the sons of Cain had become Nephilim, or giants, that is, men of unbridled violence and lawlessness. Human life and property were no longer safe from these murderers and freebooters. Cain’s murder had generated a brood of vipers.
The idea in Nephilim, or giants, means putting physical developments foremost in education. The product is the prize fighter, or the man of violence. The body is on top. Might is right. Gibborim, i.e., “men of fame or ambition,” means putting intellectual development foremost in education. It is a higher and worthier education than mere physical development. It is like saying: “There were John L. Sullivans and Captain Kidds and Jesse Jameses in those days; and after the ill-assorted marriages there were Voltaires and Humes and Ingersolls and Bonapartes,” but no Washingtons or Gladstones or Spurgeons or Edmond Paysons, except Noah alone. Dr. Conant thus disposes of the whole statement: “The meaning of the passage may be stated thus: The descendants of Cain were an irreligious race, and some were distinguished for personal prowess and the oppressive use of it. Descendants of Seth intermarried with women of this race; and from this union sprang men distinguished for like character and conduct. Thus the whole race of man becomes corrupt.”
The Withdrawal of the Grieved and Insulted Spirit This was prefigured in the case of Cain, who, having committed the unpardonable sin, was never again wooed by the Holy Spirit. Now the withdrawal is general. The influence of the Spirit is both mediate and immediate. Mediately he works through the ministry and the word of God. Immediately in convicting of sin and in disposing the sinner’s heart to accept the gospel preached. This immediate influence ceases when the whole spiritual nature is so debauched as to become “past feeling,” so as our text puts it “for that he is flesh” meaning altogether carnal. Flesh in this sense is not limited to the body, but includes the moral and intellectual man as in Rom 8:5-8 ; Gal 5:19-23 ; Gal 6:8 .
We can also readily understand the withdrawal of the Spirit’s immediate influence from the ministry of the backslidden Sethites, leaving it powerless, and even from the ministry of faithful Noah when that is persistently and insultingly rejected (compare Mat 10:13-15 ).
The calamity has come to any sinner when God says to his Spirit: “Let him alone,” while also saying to his praying people interceding for the sinner: “Let me alone.” This is the fatal conjunction: “Let him alone Let me alone.” What Jehovah Saw
“And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of the man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5 ). This statement is sweeping in its totality: (a) Every device of the thoughts of his heart; (b) in its depravity, only evil; (c) in its continuity, all the day. There can be no mistake about it, for it was not as man saw it, but as Jehovah saw it. And what a sight for the pure eyes of the infinitely Holy One!
How the Sight Affected Jehovah “And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Gen 6:8 ).
Just here we confront two difficulties: (a) The doctrine of our creed that God is impassive; (b) the emphatic statement of other scriptures that God cannot repent (1Sa 15:29 ). How may we surmount these difficulties?
I think we can let the creed part take care of itself. We set out not to study human creeds, but the Bible, and we agreed to let the Bible interpret itself and mean what it wants to mean. Our text says, “It grieved him at the heart.” Dr. Conant says, “We cannot presume to fathom the depth of meaning of such language, when spoken of the infinite and all-perfect God. How the divine nature is affected by the guilt and folly of sin is unknown to us; but this language is designed to bring it as near our conception as is possible for our finite and imperfect nature.” It seems to me that the doctor is too guarded. For while indeed the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, we can accept what the Infinite One reveals concerning himself. Jesus Christ reveals the very heart of the Father. He came for that very purpose. The grief of Jesus will reveal the grief of the Father. Suppose, therefore, we allow as exposition of this difficulty Luk 19:41-44 : “And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”
The other difficulty is not a very troublesome one. When it is said: “God is not a man that he should repent,” it means, as men repent. A man may change his mind when he gets more light on a subject, or he may change his mind from mere instability of character. The Almighty never changes his mind from either of these considerations. His very unchangeableness of nature, however, necessitates a change of mind and con duct toward a creature who has changed moral positions toward him. To illustrate, we may say at night, “The sun has hidden his face,” and in the morning, “He returns to smile upon us.” Yet it was the earth that changed faces toward the sun. The sun kept steadily shining.
WORLDWIDE RACE DESTRUCTION ANNOUNCED “And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I created from the face of the ground; both man and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
“And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.”
“And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die.”
This judgment is both sweeping and inclusive:
(a) As to man, literally: I will wipe man from the face of the earth, (b) All living creatures of the land; from man to cattle, to reptile and to the fowls of heaven. “All flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under the heavens. All that is upon the earth shall expire.” These perish with man, for they were made for him. (c) The earth itself. “I will destroy them with the earth.” It too was made for man. There is no need for an empty house or a desert land. The earth was cursed for man’s sake and must share his fate in woe (2Pe 3:5-7 ) and in weal (Rom 8:22-23 ; 2Pe 3:13 ).
Means of Destruction “And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth.” We cannot help going back to Gen 1:8-10 , and noting how the earth was formed. It was all water, then God, by atmosphere, separated the waters above from the waters below. Then he separated sea and land. Now in the flood he does two things: (a) opens the windows of heaven and lets down all the water above; (b) opens the fountains of the deep by convulsions below; so again overwhelms all the land and makes a shoreless ocean. He who separates can unite again.
RESPITE OF MERCY OR SPACE FOB REPENTANCE “His days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” This does not refer to the average limit of human life in the future in contrast with previous longevity, but the race limit until the flood. Compare the message of Jonah: “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed.” In like manner here: Yet 120 years may the Spirit strive before the world is destroyed. This is the space for repentance. The threatened doom may be a verdict by repentance, as in the case of Nineveh. Compare the case of the fig tree in Luk 8:6-9 ; and of Jezebel in Rev 2:21 ; and of Jerusalem’s day of visitation in Luk 20:42 . In this time of 120 years Jesus preached to them in the Spirit by Noah (1Pe 3:19-20 ; 2Pe 2:5 ).
MEANS FOR PRESERVATION OF RACE REMNANT FOR NEW BEGINNING “Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch; and this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it” (Gen 6:14-16 ).
This wonderful vessel occupies a large space in the Bible story and thought. The same Hebrew word, Tebah, is employed to designate the vessel in which the infant Moses was preserved (Exo 2:3 ). It was the prototype of the ark of the covenant (Hebrew word, Aron) (Deu 10:1 ), Jehovah saying to Moses as to Noah: “Make thee an ark.” In the New Testament the same Greek word, kibotos, designates both these vessels (Heb 9:4-11:7 ). Its material was the durable gopher wood, probably cypress. It was made waterproof within and without by a coating of pitch. It was not designed for steering or sailing, merely to float. Its shape was the best possible for this purpose and for tonnage or carrying capacity. Reckoning the unit of measure, the cubit, at 22 inches, nearly, we may compare its dimensions with the Great Eastern’s:
Ark 547 1/5 ft. long, 91 1/5 ft. wide, 54 18/25 ft. high. Great Eastern 680 ft. long, 821/2 feet wide, 58 ft. high.
This furnishes ample room space for all its occupants and their food for the time needed. While varieties of species of land animals in our time are numerous, the number of species is not very great. Its arrangement in stories and rooms was the best possible for the purpose. Its provision for light was suitable and adequate.
Its Occupants “But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (Gen 6:18-20 ).
“Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female; of the birds also of the heavens, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Gen 7:2-3 ).
This is the first direct reference to the distinction between clean and unclean animals, which, however, originated at the appointment of animal sacrifices just after the fall of man. The reference here assumes that the distinction is well understood, too long established and common to call for explanation.
With these was food for all: “And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them” (Gen 6:21 ).
Its Builder Noah was remarkable in character, life, and faith. He was a just man and perfect in his generation. Like Enoch he walked with God. His faith was marvelous: “By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith” (Heb 11:7 ). See Andrew Fuller’s great sermon on this text.
The Time of the Building Common opinion takes the “one hundred and twenty years” of Gen 6:3 , equal to Peter’s phrase, “While the ark was preparing” (1Pe 3:21 ). There is a serious difficulty in accepting this view. Noah was 600 years old when the flood came (Gen 7:11 ). He was 500 years old when Japheth was born (Gen 5:32 ). Yet his sons are grown and married when, as it seems, the directions for building the ark were given (Gen 6:18 ). It is not impossible to remove this difficulty thus:
(a) The date of the statement in Gen 6:3 , is not given. It may have been twenty years before the birth of Japheth.
(b) What is said in Gen 6:18 , may have been just after the ark was completed.
(c) There is no date given for the order, “Make thee an ark” (Gen 6:14 ). So it is not impossible that the preparing of the ark was 120 years.
In a subsequent chapter will be considered the great lessons connected with the building of the ark and the flood.
QUESTIONS 1. State the nature and ground of man’s race title to the earth.
2. Give twelve elements of gospel light possessed by the antediluvians.
3. At what limit would the race title to the earth lapse?
4. What double base was there for race deterioration?
5. What four facts of evil practice were the remote causes of the deluge?
6. By what last disastrous sin was race corruption brought about and world destruction necessitated?
7. State the first evil theory of this sin and reply to it.
8. The second evil theory and its alleged scriptural basis?
9. How do you answer it?
10. Show how the ill-assorted marriages of believers and unbelievers brought about this race corruption.
11. What was the awful result as Jehovah saw it?
12. How did this sight affect him?
13. How do you harmonize the statement of Jehovah’s grief with the doctrine of the creed that God is impassive?
14. What fact of Christ’s life illustrates the grief of God?
15. How do you explain the phrase, “It repented Jehovah that he had made man,” when compared with 1Sa 15:29 ?
16. What judgment did God pronounce?
17. Show how sweeping and inclusive was this judgment.
18. What means were appointed to bring it about?
19. What creative act did this reverse?
20. What respite of mercy and space for repentance was granted?
21. Does this 120 years refer to the future limit of the individual human life, or the race limit until the flood?
22. What other Old Testament case similarly shows a space for repentance?
23. What New Testament cases?
24. Explain 1Pe 3:19-20 , in connection with Gen 6:3 .
25. What means of preservation, for the race remnant spared, appointed?
26. Of what was the ark a prototype?
27. Of what an antitype?
28. Show this by explanation of Act 10:11-15 .
29. Reckoning the cubit at twenty-two inches nearly, show relative dimensions of the ark and the Great Eastern.
30. For what occupants with a year’s supply of food must room space be provided?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Ver. 1. When men began to multiply. ] Not good men only, but bad men too; who therefore took them more wives than one, that they might multiply amain. A numerous offspring is no sure sign of God’s special favour. It is well observed, that when God promised children as a blessing, he said, “The wife should be as the vine, and the children as olive plants”; – two Psa 128:3 of the best fruits, the one for cheering the heart, the other for clearing the face; Psa 104:15 Jdg 9:9 ; Jdg 9:13 the one for sweetness, the other for fatness. “Blessed is the man that hath his quiver full of such, as are the arrows of a strong man.” Psa 127:4-5 Hence it follows, that they must have more in them than nature; for arrows are not arrows by growth, but by art: so they must be such children, the knottiness of whose nature is refined and reformed, and made smooth by grace. This workmanship of God in the hearts and lives of children, is like the engraving of a king’s “palace,” or the “polished corners” of the temple. Psa 144:12 This preserves “Jacob from confusion, and his face from waxing pale”: – this makes religious parents to “sanctify God’s name,” even to “sanctify the Holy One,” and with singular encouragement from “the God of Israel.” Isa 29:22-23 It never goes well with the Church, but when the son marries the mother. Isa 62:5
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 6:1-4
1Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3Then 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. 4The 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.
Gen 6:1 men This is the generic use of the term (cf. Gen 5:2). If it is used in the generic sense in Gen 6:2 which seems probable then the angelic theory is strengthened.
and daughters were born to them This does not imply that these were the first birth of daughters (cf. Gen 5:4) but a general statement of the expansion of the human race (BDB 408, KB 411, Qal PASSIVE PERFECT).
Gen 6:2 sons of God See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE SONS OF GOD IN Genesis 6
the daughters of men were beautiful The term beautiful is literally good or fair (BDB 373). This has been a key theological concept from chapter 1 (esp. Gen 1:31). What God saw as good He now sees evil (cf. Gen 6:5-6).
they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose The first phrase implies marriage which would militate against the view that it was angels (BDB 542, KB 534, Qal IMPERFECT). However, the second phrase implies that they took previously married and/or unmarried women, whomever they chose (BDB 103, 119, Qal PERFECT). This could imply (1) angelic beings or (2) powerful human leaders of Cain’s line (i.e. tyrants) practicing polygamy.
Gen 6:3 My Spirit shall not strive with man forever The term strive can be translated remain (BDB 192, KB 220, Qal IMPERFECT, cf. NRSV abide). This either refers to (1) God’s patience (i.e. He postponed the flood until the ark was finished, cf. 1Pe 3:20) or (2) mankind’s reduced life span.
How does Gen 6:3 relate to Gen 6:1-2; Gen 6:4? It is very difficult to follow the original author’s intent through this context. Possibly even though humans had mixed with angels they will still die. As Eve saw and took so now sons of God saw and took, which implies the same type of rebellion (i.e. possibly grasping eternal life or independence).
because he is also flesh This seems to add weight to the interpretation that the other people spoken of in the passage are angelic beings in contradistinction to mortal humans. Today’s English Version translates they are mortal.
nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years This seems to imply a time period of grace (cf. 2Pe 2:5) where it asserts that Noah preached for these intervening years, therefore, it refers to the time until the flood came. It also could point toward the reduced life-span of humans after the coming flood.
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim This implies the fallen ones (from the Hebrew naphal, BDB 658, KB 709). It seems to me that they are analogous to the giants (cf. Num 13:33; also Deu 2:10-11; Deu 9:2; and the Septuagint, the Vulgate and Peshitta translations). However, other interpreters such as Martin Luther and H.C. Leupold assert that this term should be interpreted tyrants which implies the powerful kings of Cain’s line who had large harems.
J. Wash Watts in Old Testament Teaching, pp. 28-30, says Nephilim refers to Noah and his family as those who separated themselves from those of Cain’s line and Seth’s line who were intermarrying. In this interpretation Nephilim are the sons of the One true God (cf. the God Gen 5:22; Gen 5:24; Gen 6:9). See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: TERMS USED FOR TALL/POWERFUL WARRIORS OR PEOPLE GROUPS
were on the earth in those days Those who believe in angels co-habitating with human women use the second half of Gen 6:4 as a proof-text to show that the giants came out of this relationship. However, others use the first half of Gen 6:4 to assert that giants were already on the earth at this time.
The inter-testamental apocalyptic book of I Enoch asserts that these giants were the result of the union of angels and humans and that the mixing of the orders of creation is the reason God sent the flood. I Enoch also asserts that these giants who lost their physical bodies in the flood are the demons seeking to indwell human bodies for their own selfish reasons.
NASB, NKJVthe mighty men
NRSV, NJBthe heroes
TEVthe great heroes
This is the Hebrew term gibbor (BDB 150), which means an especially empowered person, animal, or thing. It is used of (1) Nimrod in Gen 10:8-9; (2) tyrants in Psa 52:1; Eze 32:27; and (3) angels in Psa 103:20 (also in the Thanksgiving Hymns Psa. 8:11 and Psa. 20:34 from the Dead Sea Scrolls)
NASB, NKJV
NJB, NIVmen of renown
NRSVwarriors of renown
TEVfamous men
The first rendering is the translation of most modern English Bibles as well as the Septuagint. However, literally it is men of the name (BDB 1027). This has resulted in three theories:
(1) it refers to the godly line of Seth who worshiped YHWH (i.e. the name of God, cf. J. Wash Watts)
(2) it refers to the Nephilim as powerful offspring of the angels and humans (i.e. the giants cf. TEV)
(3) it refers to the kings of the godless line of Cain who were tyrants (cf. NRSV); they took many women as wives (i.e. royal polygamy cf. NJB)
This is a very brief and ambiguous paragraph. Its main thrust is the continual and escalating wickedness of creation which sets the stage for God’s radical judgment. However, wickedness continues even in Noah and his family.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
The Chronology having been brought up to Noah’s days, the History takes us back (not forward).
men = sing, with art. = the man Adam. See App-14.
earth = Hebrew. h’adamah, ground.
them: i.e. to Adam and Eve, as in Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:2.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter six.
It came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took unto them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit will not always strive with man, in that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years ( Gen 6:1-3 ).
So we’re coming now to a time in which God is going to drastically alter man’s lifespan. By the time they were getting nine hundred years old they were getting so wicked. God says I’m not going to leave them around that long; cut them down to a hundred and twenty years. So drastic altering after the flood of man’s lifespan which could easily be explained by the loss of the protective blanket around the earth, allowing much greater cosmic radiation which causes the mutations of the cells which causes the aging process in man. There’s no way by which you can protect yourself from these little neutrinos, these little cosmic rays that bombard the earth and pass right through the thing like it wasn’t even there. The earth is under this constant bombardment.
Actually, we are protected much by our atmosphere. There is a certain danger to too much high-altitude flying. You get up above the protective blanket and your ultra-violet ray radiation gets much greater, in that the airlines have found that they can only -you can say pilots really have it made, you know, they only fly once a week. All that’s because of the fact that it is a hazardous thing you’re getting up above much of our protective blanket when you get up thirty-eight to thirty-nine thousand feet. And so they limit their exposure. We’re learning more and more about that.
Who are the sons of God? Now there are those who will make the sons of God the descendants of Shem. So they are Shemites, say some. The daughters of men were the Cainites, the descendants of Cain, according to the theory. And that the godly line of Shem began to intermarry with the ungodly line of Cain. And the product -it’s hard to explain how it was giants, but that’s the theory.
The term “sons of God” in the Old Testament is used elsewhere but only of angels, never of man. In Job, the sons of God were presenting themselves to God and Satan also came with them, angels. It would appear that these are angels here in Genesis, that they actually began to intermingle and intermarry. You say but wait a minute. Jesus said the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage in heaven. That is true. But Jesus did not say that they were sexless; He just said there was no marriage nor given in marriage. And it is interesting that always angels are referred to in a masculine form.
There are difficulties with this verse, if you try to make it the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. There are also difficulties if you try to make it angels intermarrying with man. But in verse four.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown ( Gen 6:4 ).
Some kind of a super race of giant men as a result of this.
In the New Testament, we read that those angels, which kept not their first estate are reserved in the chains of Tartarus awaiting the day of judgment ( Jud 1:6 ). It seems that there were certain angels, perhaps, that did not keep the first principle or first estate. Maybe they were these angels who came down and began to intermingle and intermarry with men. There are a lot of interesting things that we don’t know all of the answers to, this being one of them.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and the eyes and that every imagination and the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them ( Gen 6:5-7 ).
Now whenever we get to this statement that it repented God, we find that it is again a difficult statement to handle because the Scripture clearly teaches that “God is not a man, that he should repent, or that He should lie; nor the son of man, that he should repent” ( Num 23:19 ). In other words, God being omniscient knew from the beginning what was going to be. Then what does this scripture mean? “It repented God” and God said, I, you know, “I’m sorry that I’ve made man.” That it repented God that He had made man.
It is extremely difficult to talk about God in human terms because we are limited to human terminology. Therefore, there are certain actions of God that I must describe but how am I going to describe them except with language that we understand? So this is one of those areas where you run into the difficulty, because you’re trying to explain an action of God, but the only words that you have to explain, that action, are words that are significant to man but not at all in the category of God. So trying to explain it in a way that man would understand from the human level this action of God, I am bound to the human terms. And thus, I attribute unto God a human capacity, though in reality, the repentance of God is not at all as I would repent or I would be sorry for a thing. But I cannot understand the action of God because “His ways are above my ways and beyond my finding out” ( Rom 11:33 ).
So God knew from the beginning all things. God knew that men would be corrupted. God knew that there would be violence. God knew that men would bring self-destruction upon himself. And so we describe the action of God in human terms. But yet the Scripture declares that “God is not a man that he should lie nor the son of man that he should repent.” But I have no other words to describe the action of God, so I describe it in human terms. Though it is not at all repentance as man would turn or man would change.
God said, “Behold, I am the Lord God, I change not” ( Mal 3:6 ). He doesn’t have to change. He is God. So God declares His destruction of the earth.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. And these are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God ( Gen 6:8-9 ).
In the midst of an evil and corrupt world, with the wickedness and the corruption and every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart evil continually, there is one man down on earth walking in harmony with God, in fellowship with God. Noah walked with God. What a testimony and what a witness.
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked upon the earth, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it or cover it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits ( Gen 6:11-15 ).
Now a cubit is about eighteen inches long which means that this ark was four hundred and fifty feet long, one hundred and fifty feet wide, and forty-five feet tall. It was to be three stories, fifteen feet each. Pretty big boat, really, it has a cubit footage of about one million, four hundred thousand cubit feet, equivalent to about five hundred and twenty-two cattle cars of a train. So if you had a train with five hundred and twenty-two cattle cars, you could carry quite a few animals. The ark was no just little boat. It was something like man had never seen up to that point.
It is interesting that it is six times as long as it is wide, which, of course, we have discovered today as the ideal ratio for a ship its length to its width. And most of our Navy ships are just about the same ratio, about six times to our, four hundred and fifty by seventy-five, about six to one.
Now a lot of times people have difficulty with this story of the flood, the story of the ark, the story of the animals coming in, the story of the preservation of man and animals, but there have been some excellent books written on the subject. Dr. Whitcam and Dr. Morris have combined together in a book called “The Genesis Flood” which is perhaps one of the most scholarly of all of the books that have been written on the subject. But there has been of late recent interest in the flood and in the ark because there are continuing reports of a large ship up encased in the ice on Mount Ararat. And these go back to the time of Marco Polo who reports this great boat up there in the ice as the people in the area talk about it.
In 1917 there was a report of a Russian flyer who spotted, in a particularly hot summer and long summer, as he was flying in the area of Mount Ararat, he spotted this great boat down there in the ice. According to his story, an expedition was formed and at the time that they were coming out with the evidence was when the Bolshevik revolution took over, and all, and the evidence was destroyed. This flyer later came to Canada and told his story which caused others to try to find or locate this boat. And one of these being a French explorer by the name of Navarro, who has brought back wood from this object, that he found high above the timberline encased in the ice and described it in his book, “Noah’s Ark, I Touched It”, by Francis Navarro.
There are attempts at expeditions now, but the Turkish government being Moslem controlled, has really not allowed any recent kind of expeditions. There are men of science who would like to go up and settle the issue once and for all but the Turkish government right now is opposed to it.
Even as the government of Syria has been reluctant to allow any more excavations where they found the Ebla Tablets. Because if the Ebla Tablets, proving the fact that Abraham did exist, David did exist, and so forth, and they’re upset with this because it does give to the Israeli a claim and a right to the land. And so the Syrian government has asked them not to do anymore excavations in the area of the Ebla Tablets and are cutting off any further scientific expeditions there because of the adverse effect upon it, also a Moslem state.
And if the ark could be discovered, then of course, it would create an interesting problem for the scientist is how did that boat get up there so high? How did they carry the lumber up there to build that thing? And the whole thing, it would be, of course, very interesting. Jesus said, “Blessed are they who see and believe; more blessed are they who believe without seeing” ( Joh 20:29 ). And if it would take the ark’s discovery to make a believer out of you, I feel sorry for you. But I hope that they will discover it so you will become a believer.
But there is other interesting evidence that the world did experience a worldwide flood. Of course, the idea of a worldwide flood is opposed to the Uniformitarian theory upon which evolution is based, and it is interesting that scientists are not always honest. In fact, there’s a lot of dishonesty in the scientific field. They like to come off as men of science, but most of them have certain theories that they have sworn by and thus to change would be to discredit themselves, and their pride won’t allow them to do it. And anyone who says anything other than what they have already accepted as fact, any evidence that is brought forth that would destroy one of their theories that they accept as scientific fact, they immediately reject, crucify the individual, reject his work.
Emmanuel Villakoski first came out with his book, Ages or “Worlds in Collision” and it was first published by McMillan. Now McMillan publishes a lot of school textbooks. And the professors were so angry at the fact that Emmanuel Villakoski came out with in his book, “Worlds in Collision”, showing the impossibility of Uniformitarianism, disproving it, that they raised such a ruckus that McMillan Company had to quit publishing the book. And Doubleday picked up the rights and began to publish it, but they were determined to not allow the book to come to the public. And when it was delivered to the public, there was a great furor and a quick retraction of the things that he said before the book was ever published. Before people had full copies of the book, they were already writing rebuttals, not even knowing for sure what he said.
Scientists are not dishonest. I mean, they are not honest. When it comes to a destroying of one of their pet little theories, there they will lie, they will connive and everything else in order to keep their theory alive, and their pet theory is that man exists by an evolutionary process. And the reason why they love that theory so much is because it is able to exclude God from the system. And anxious to exclude God from their system, they tenaciously, religiously hold to the evolutionary theory. Though much evidence is being uncovered that would really make the theory quite incredible.
Emmanuel Villakoski has written a new book, “Earth in Upheaval”. Now let me say this concerning Emmanuel Villakoski. Number one, he doesn’t really believe that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, there are parts of the Bible that he completely rejects. He’s not a Christian; he’s a Jewish scientist. But he looks at the Bible as a history book, and he takes the things that happened or that the Bible declares happens.
And he seeks to use them as historic facts to prove his theory which is that the planet Venus was introduced to our solar system and became fixed in its own orbit at about the time of Joshua. And the long day of Joshua is explained by this near pass of the planet Venus. That the plagues in Egypt at the time of Moses are explained by an earlier pass of the planet Venus. That there were several passes until it became fixed in its own orbit around the sun. There were several near misses. And that there was a change in the orbital pattern of Mars and Venus, and that Venus was introduced actually into our planetary solar system within the last five thousand years causing major upheavals upon the earth. Now that’s his theory and he seeks to prove his theory. But in so doing, he amasses a great deal of evidence.
But some of this evidence that he has amassed is very interesting to me. For instance, in this book “Earth’s in Upheaval”, he tells about the bones of whales that have been found four hundred and forty feet above sea level north of Lake Ontario. A skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont more than five hundred feet above sea level and still another in Montreal, Quebec area about six hundred feet above sea level; the skeletons of whales. Now people don’t carry the carcass of a whale five hundred feet up the mountain and several miles from the ocean. So the question is how did the whales get there?
Now he has his own theory of the upper, you know, the thrusting upward of mountain ranges and that is what he is seeking to prove in this book “Earth’s in Upheaval” that the mountain ranges have all been thrust upward in very recent history. I mean, you talk about recent history, you’re talking about in something less than seven thousand years.
But rather than the mountains being thrust upwards, what about the water being thrust upwards and covering the area and the whales swimming there, until the waters receded and happened to get caught and was left floundering as the waters receded off of the face of the earth? That’s just as plausible as his upward thrust theory, a little more scriptural.
He also points out that Joseph Prestwich, the professor of geology at Oxford, 1874-1888, an acknowledged authority in the quantinery glaciate. Recent age in England was struck by a numerous phenomena, all of which led him to the belief that south of England, the south of England had been submerged to a depth of not less than a thousand feet between the glacial and post-glacial, or in the recent Neolithic late stone period. In a spasmodic movement of terrain, the coast in the land masses in southern England were submerged to such a depth that points to a thousand feet high were below sea level in England.
And then they show, or they talk about how that they found these cliffs in the various strata, various widths, and with the bones of animals-mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison-the bones are broken into innumerable fragments. No skeleton is found entire. The separate bones, in fact, have been dispersed in the most irregular manner and without any bearing to their relative position in the skeleton. Neither did they show any wear nor have they been gnawed by beast of prey, though they occur with the bones of hyena, wolf, bear and lion.
In other places in Devonshire, and Pembrook in Wales, the ossiferous breccia or conglomerates of broken bones and stones in the fissures and limestones consist of angular rock fragments and broken and splintered bones with sharp fractured edges and a fresh state and in splendid conditions showing no traces of gnawing.
And it tells about in there are so many areas around the world where in caves or in cliffs, in fissures, they have found these bones like they have been thrown in the various animals, which are actually predatory to each other but thrown in at the same time smashed and then covered with silt, as if by some violent tidal wave action or force submerged to a thousand feet. Now you might again use that to prove an upward thrust theory but it would also provide very interesting proof of a violent flood, which I opt for.
Now it goes on to tell about the covered Cumberland cavern in Maine or Maryland, when workmen were cutting the way for a railroad with dynamite and a steam shovel came upon a cavern or a closed fissure, with a peculiar assemblage of animals. Many of the species are comparable to forms now living in the vicinity of the cave, but others are distinctly northern in their affinities and some are related to species peculiar to the southern or lower astral region.
Thus wrote J.W. Gidley and C.L. Gaston of the United States National Museum: A crocodile and taper are representative of the southern climate. A wolf or lemming are distinctly northern. It seems highly improbable that they co-existed in one place. The usual assumption was made that the cave received the animal remains in a glacial and interglacial period. However, the scientists to explore the cavern for the Smithsonian Institute, as soon as it was discovered and to return there the following years for closer investigation, J.W. Gidley contended that the animals were contemporaneous; that is, they lived at the same time. The position of the bones excluded any other explanation. This strange assemblage of fossil remains occurs hopelessly intermingled.
Now of course, the climactic condition prior to the flood was different around the earth. The animals could have been co-mingling and existing together in the same area, thrown in by the violent force of the flood. The great waters of the deep being broken and thrown in and broken the bones, broken and then covered there in the cavern with silt.
Now one further thing in the book is he talks about the Himalayas. Scientists of the nineteenth century were dismayed to find that as high as they climbed in the Himalayas, the rocks of the mass sifts yield skeletons of marine animals, fish that swim in the ocean and the shells of mollusks. This was evidence that the Himalayas had risen from beneath the sea or evidence that the Himalayas were covered by water. Same thing down in South America there in the Andean Mountains, and so forth. All evidence that at one time covered by water.
So God has left evidence. Men are misinterpreting quite often the evidence that God has left. But there is not one good reason to believe other than these remains were left by a great flood. That these areas were indeed covered with water that covered the earth unto fifteen feet above the highest mountains, just like the Scriptures declared.
You might pick up this little book, “Earth in Upheaval”, or “Earth in Upheaval” by Villakoski. It certainly destroys the theory of Uniformitarianism and shows the real documentation of cataclysmic changes in the earth. Also I was intrigued by his books, “World in Collision”, his book, “World in Collision”, too. I find it very interesting.
There are many evidences of a great flood. There are some areas where the silt deposits are so thick, hundreds of feet thick, and for silt to be deposited in such a thick deposit would necessitate several thousand feet of water for silt deposits that large.
Now the evolutionists seek to use the geological column as the basis of proof for the evolutionary theory. There are many problems with the use of the geological column as the basis of proof for the evolutionary theory, not the least of being the fact that the geological columns are totally lacking in any evidence of any transition forms from one species to another; not one single evidence of a transitional form of species, which of course is a vital part of the evolutionary theory.
But this total lack of evidence in the geological column of any transitory form of species caused a professor at Stanford University to come up with the Hopeful Monster Theory to prove the change or to explain the changes of species for which the geological column is so absolutely silent. And so according to the Hopeful Monster Theory, the snake laid its eggs in the sand and when they hatched the birds flew out. He may call it the Hopeful Monster Theory but as far as I’m concerned, it’s for the birds. Because you’ve had to have two birds flying out in order the thing might continue a new chain, develop a new species.
The geological column is interesting. Of course, it’s a thing that is involved in circular reasoning. For how do they age, how do they date the various geological formations? They age them by the type of fossil found in it. Now how do they age the fossils found in the various formations? The fossils are aged by the type of formation they are found in.
In other words, there is no accurate way of aging. They are dated upon the assumption of the truth of the evolutionary theory that all things have evolved from a lesser form to a higher form. But there are areas where there is a total reversal of the geological column, where some of the older columns are over the top of the new for several hundred, and in some places several thousand square miles.
And so they have developed, of course, they’re never lost for an idea or a theory and they develop this whole flip-flop pancake theory that somehow the whole thing got flipped over several thousand miles, just square miles flipped over, inverting the columns. Of course, how one tree was able to grow through several of the various forms of these, of the geological column rocks and so forth covering several millions of years is a little bit harder for them to explain. But if you believe in the flood, you have no problem with the geological column at all. Everything was made after its own species just like God said.
Now it would stand to reason that the low order form of life would be the first that would just be lost in the flood and drowned at the lower levels. And as the sediment would build up, you would have the higher forms of life, some that would be able to get higher in the -on the cliff or be able to swim maybe a bit and would be planted higher, so the more complex forms would be higher in the geological column, but all of them being placed there by the flood.
And the flood really is a far more plausible explanation of the geological column and is in total harmony with the model that you would set by creation by God of species after their own kind and all, because then you would not expect to have any transitional forms between species. So the flood itself gives to us a very plausible explanation of the whole geological column, and the geological column actually again a proof that the flood did exist.
But Peter, though he wrote two thousand years ago, seemed to nail the thing right on the head. For he said, “In the last days scoffers would come saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For all things continue as from the beginning since our fathers have fallen asleep” ( 2Pe 3:3 ). That’s the doctrine or the theory of Uniformitarianism. Everything is continuing as it was from the beginning.
So Peter foresaw this theory of Uniformitarianism by the scoffers who would be mocking at the Bible and the promises of the coming of Jesus Christ. All things continue as they were from the beginning, Peter said they would be saying or the doctrine or the theory of Uniformitarianism. But Peter said, “Of these they are willingly ignorant, that God destroyed the world with a flood” ( 2Pe 3:5 ). The one thing that would account for all of the evidences, they are willingly ignorant of that fact. Peter nailed it way in advance, foreseeing it by the Spirit of God. So again the Bible is well ahead of man.
So God gave to Noah the dimensions of the ark. Now it was to have a window of about eighteen inches, and I feel that this window was all the way around the top. In other words, there was this opening all the way around the top to give air and ventilation. Of course, man with all those animals for that much time, you’d really want to ventilate it to some extent. And so eighteen inches,
A cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side; with the lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of the fowls after their kind, the cattle after their kind, the creeping things of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he ( Gen 6:16-22 ).
Now, of course, when Noah brought them in it was all after their kind. In other words, he didn’t have to bring in dachshund and collies and spaniels and Samoyeds and all different kinds, he could bring in one pair of dogs. And there are mutant strains that do exist. And there’s definitely evolutionary processes that take place on a horizontal plane within a family, within a species. There are the changes, the mutant changes that can take place within species. So he didn’t have to bring in all kinds of cats, Persian, Siamese, et cetera. Just one pair of cats would do. And so the variations that have come within species, there’s no problem with that.
So the ark, you know, wouldn’t have to bring one of every variety within a species, just the major species head for each species that he brought in and allowing evolutionary changes within a species. Where you cannot find evidence for evolutionary changes is in the vertical, the transition from one species to another. That’s where the evidence is lacking.
Sure you can show that a monkey at one period had, you know, eighteen teeth and another and during the different periods, you know, there were mutant strains and so forth and more teeth and less teeth, et cetera, changes of facial parts and so forth. Sure, you can have mutants in a horizontal change, but you don’t have vertical changes from one species to another. And this, of course, is where the theory of evolution fails in proof of any transitional forms in the changing from one species to another species.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
With the passing of the centuries, the degeneration of the individual and the family became that of society. There had been intermixture between the descendants of Cain and those of Seth, resulting in the Nephilim. These were strong and godless men, ultimately swept away by the Flood.
The description of life is a terrible one. “The wickedness of man was great” that describes the outward condition; “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” that describes the inward character. The completeness of the depravity is revealed in the use of the words, “every,” “only,” “continually.” God was defied and the flesh with its passions and lusts was regnant.
All this “Jehovah saw.” His fiat went forth that His Spirit should not always strive with man, and the limit of one hundred and twenty years was set.
Amid this degeneration Noah is seen as a man walking with God. With this man God holds communion and brings him into co-operation with Himself for the preservation of a seed and the bearing of testimony. The closing declaration, “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he,” is a remarkable revelation of his faith. It was a period of strange experiences. Strong men and godless were living and flourishing in all things mental and material. There is no doubt that for material gain they co-operated with Noah in the building of the Ark, which they must have held in supreme disdain. Nevertheless, in every nail driven and foot of work completed, space was given to them to repent. Noah preached righteousness by the very building of the Ark. Yet it would seem as though none profited, save Noah and his family; and his carpenters were finally destroyed outside the Ark which they had helped to construct.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Wickedness of Men
Gen 5:25-32; Gen 6:1-8
When a son was born to Lamech, he named him Noah, which means Rest.He thought that the boy would grow up to share and alleviate the strain of daily toil. But his hope was premature: rest was not yet: the Deluge would soon sweep over the works of men. The world must await the true Rest-giver, who said, Come unto Me. It was an age of abounding wickedness, but the language describing it is obscure. Some think that the sons of God were fallen angels; others that the seed of Seth became joined in marriage with the daughters of Cain. But Gods Spirit strove with man, and though a limit was put to His pleadings, yet He sought men with yearning remonstrance, till His Holy Spirit received the final negative and turned away disappointed and grieved. There was considerable delay. For 120 years the Spirit of God waited. See 1Pe 3:20. He will not wait for ever, Luk 13:9.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Gen 6:3
I. What is implied in the assertion, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man?” It is implied: (1) that the Spirit does sometimes strive with men; (2) that men resist the Spirit.
II. What is not intended by the Spirit striving? It is no form of physical struggling or effort whatever. It is not any force applied to our bodies.
III. What, then, is the striving of the Spirit? It is an energy of God applied to the mind of man, setting truth before his mind, reasoning, convincing, and persuading.
IV. How may it be known when the Spirit of God strives with an individual? (1) When a man finds his attention arrested to the great concerns of his soul; (2) when a man finds himself convinced of sin; (3) when the mind is convicted of the great guilt and ill-desert of sin; (4) when men see the folly of seeking salvation in any other way than through Christ alone.
V. What is intended by the Spirit’s not striving always? Not that He will at some period withdraw from among mankind, but that He will withdraw from the individual in question. There is a limit to the Spirit’s efforts in the case of each sinner; at some uncertain, awful point he will reach and pass it.
VI. Why will God’s Spirit not strive always? (1) Because longer striving will do the sinner no good; (2) because sinners sin wilfully when they resist the Holy Ghost; (3) because there is a point beyond which forbearance is no virtue.
VII. Consequences of the Spirit’s ceasing to strive with men: (1) a confirmed hardness of heart; (2) a seared conscience; (3) certain damnation.
C. G. Finney, Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 264.
God strives with man in many ways by the working of His blessed Spirit within him: by the working of our own conscience, by various warnings from without, constantly strewn in our paths; but if we grieve and resist the Holy Spirit of God, then He will not always strive with us, but will give us over to a reprobate mind.
I. Consider the great mercy of God in consenting to strive with man at all.
II. The striving of the Spirit is a means of resisting the flesh.
III. The Spirit of God strives in many ways. His strivings have a meaning, a message, and a warning to us all.
Bishop Atlay, Penny Pulpit, No. 556.
References: Gen 6:2.-G. Calthrop, Words Spoken to my Friends, p. 149. Gen 6:3.-C. Kingsley, National Sermons, p. 362; J. Wells, Bible Echoes, p. 217; J. Natt, Posthumous Sermons, p. 328; J. Keble, Sermons for the Christian Year, vol. iii., p. 161; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vii., p. 43, and vol. xvi., p. 23. Gen 6:5.-J. Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 138.
Gen 6:5-6, Gen 6:7
I. “In these verses,” it will be said, “we see the results of the fall. God made man innocent, and man fell when he lost this independent virtue, this innocency of his own; as the first father lost it, all his descendants, by the decree of God or by some necessity of their relationship, lost it too; hence arose the need for Divine grace, and for men being made partakers of a righteouness which is not their own.”
Now, if we follow the Scripture narrative closely, we shall find that it directly negatives this statement. It tells us that God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” Such words absolutely exclude the idea that man, according to his original constitution, possessed anything of his own. They affirm him to be good Only in so far as he reflects that which exists perfect in another, so far only as he confesses Him to be the Good. God pronounced His creation very good, because no creature was standing in itself-because the highest creature, to which all the others looked up, himself looked up to his Maker and saw his perfection in Him.
II. The principle that man was made in the image of God is not a principle which was true for Adam and false for us. It is the principle upon which the race was constituted and can never cease to be constituted. Adam’s sin consisted in disbelieving that law and acting as if he were not under it. The Divine order has not been interrupted because a man refused obedience to it; it is only made more evident by that violation. Man has set up a self-will, has fallen under the dominion of the nature which God had given him. This very act is a step in his education, a means by which God will teach him more fully what he is, what he is not; how he may thwart the purposes of his Creator, how he may conspire with them.
III. The story of the flood, as told in Scripture, is a most memorable part of the history of man, expounding the course of God’s dealings with him. He is grieved that He made man, because men were living wholly at variance with the law under which they were created. He uses the powers of nature to destroy those who had made themselves the slaves of nature. The righteous government which physical things obey is thus indicated. God’s repentance is reconciled with His divine, unchangeable will. There is a true and holy repentance in God, otherwise there could be no repentance in us.
F. D. Maurice, The Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Testament, p. 50.
References: Gen 6:6.-Weekly Pulpit, vol. i. (1887), p. 235. Gen 6:7.-Parker, vol. i., p. 164. Gen 6:6-8.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 334. Gen 6:8.-R. S. Candlish, Book of Genesis, vol. i., p. 108.
Gen 6:9
I. Noah, we read, “was a just man and perfect in his generations”; and why? (1) Because he was a faithful man-faithful to God, as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Noah and Abraham believed God, and so became heirs of the righteousness which is by faith; not their own righteousness, not growing out of their own character, but given them by God, who puts His righteous Spirit into those who trust in Him. (2) Noah was perfect in all the relations and duties of life-a good son, a good husband, a good father: these were the fruits of his faith. He believed that the unseen God had given him these ties, had given him his parents and his children, and that to love them was to love God, to do his duty to them was to do his duty to God.
II. The Bible gives us a picture of the old world before the flood-a world of men mighty in body and mind, fierce and busy, conquering the world round them, in continual war and turmoil; with all the wild passions of youth, and yet all the cunning and experience of enormous old age; every one guided only by self-will, having cast off God and conscience, and doing every man that which was right in the sight of his own eyes. And amidst all this Noah was steadfast; he at least knew his way; he “walked with God, a just man and perfect in his generations.”
III. There was something wonderful and divine in Noah’s patience. He knew that a flood was to come; he set to work in faith to build his ark, and that ark was in building for one hundred and twenty years. During all that time Noah never lost faith, and he never lost love either, for we read that he preached righteousness to the very men who mocked him, and preached in vain. One hundred and twenty years he warned those sinners of God’s wrath, of righteousness and judgment to come, and no man listened to him. That must have been the hardest of his trials.
C. Kingsley, Village Sermons, p. 74.
References: Gen 6:9.-R. S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis, vol. i., p. 127; E. Garbett, Experiences of the Inner Life, p. 234.
Gen 6:12
(with Luk 17:26-27)
I. The statement in Genesis of the corruption of the world before the flood is expressed in very strong language: “The wickedness of man was great in the earth.” Only one particular feature of this general corruption is given: “that the earth was filled with violence.” Yet this is mentioned as forming rather a part of the general corruption than as being the whole of it. Another, and as it may seem, a more prevailing part, is given by our Lord: “They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage.”
Our Lord here names not occasional crimes which disturb society, but society’s most ordinary and most necessary practices; things which are neither crimes nor sins in themselves; things which men may do and must do. He means us to understand that there is a natural danger in the things of which He was speaking, which, if left to itself and not earnestly struggled against, would certainly lead to the following judgment.
II. The great truth is, that no one, old or young, can save his soul by following the course of life quietly and letting it drift him whither it will.. It is not in our life here, as we now live, with all its wisdom and all its labour and all its pleasures, to attain to life eternal. Round the tree of life there is a fiery guard, which allows not fallen man in his own natural course to reach unto it. It is not like a tree standing by the wayside, so that we have only to put forth our hand as we go by, and eat and live for ever. Christ came to take us out of our common nature, to tear us away from the path which we were naturally treading; to give us another nature not our own, to set us in a new way, of which the end is not death but life.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 82.
Reference: Gen 6:13.-Parker, vol. i., p. 159.
Gen 6:16
I. When Noah was building his ark, God gave him a command, “A window shalt thou make to the ark,” and this window was to be made in the roof. Its purpose was (1) to let in the light and air; (2) that Noah might look out of it, sometimes, to heaven. He could see nothing of earth through it, only heaven. Sometimes he may have felt inclined to doubt during the forty days of rain; but at that window he lifted his face to the light and held communion with God.
II. We have got a voyage over the water-flood also. We have to pass through many storms and troubles. These will swallow us up, unless we systematically keep a window in the roof open, and go to it, to look through it to God. When Daniel was in the land of captivity, he opened his window seven times a day towards Jerusalem, and prayed to God through it. Our Jerusalem is above-the heavenly Jerusalem; and we must, like him, turn our faces thither and pray.
S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 159.
References: Gen 6:22.-M. G. Pearse, Sermons for Children, p. 34; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 383; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. viii., p. 79.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 6:1-8
The Increasing Corruption
1. The sons of God and the daughters of men (Gen 6:1-2)
2. The warning of Jehovah (Gen 6:3)
3. Increased wickedness (Gen 6:4-6)
4. Judgment announced (Gen 6:7)
5. Noah found grace (Gen 6:8)
The question is who are the sons of God who took the daughters of men. The general view is that the sons of God were the pious descendants of Seth and the daughters of men, the Cainitish offspring. However, there are strong arguments against it.
1. There is no proof in the text that the daughters of men were only the descendants of the Cainites. The text supports the view that in daughters of men the natural increase of the whole human family is meant, and not a special class.
2. The theory that sons of God must mean pious people can likewise not be sustained. The term sons of God is never applied in the Old Testament to believers. Isa 43:6 refers to the future gathering of the godly remnant of Israel. That the believer is a son of God, predestined to the son-place, with the spirit of sonship in him, crying, Abba, Father, is exclusively a New Testament revelation.
3. The result of the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men were children, who were heroes, men of the Name. If the sons of God were simply the pious Sethites, who mixed with the Cainites, it is hard to understand why the offspring should be a special race, heroes, men of the Name. The giants were Nephilim, which means the fallen ones.
Sons of God is the term applied in the Old Testament to supernatural beings, both good and evil. Angels good and fallen are termed sons of God in the Old Testament. Satan himself is reckoned among the sons of God in Job 1:6; Job 2:1. The term sons of God must mean here supernatural evil beings. These evil beings came down out of the air and began to take possession of such of the daughters of men as they chose.
For if God spared not the angels which sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them unto chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly (2Pe 2:4-5).
Here we have a New Testament hint on Gen 6:1-5. The Scripture declares that the fallen angels are still loose; here, however, are angels, which sinned and God did not spare them. Another passage in Judes Epistle is still more significant: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. This statement in Jude is linked with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
We stand not alone in this exposition. The sons of God, in my judgment, mean the same beings in Genesis as they do in Job. This point will suffice to indicate their chief guilt in thus traversing the boundaries which God appointed for His creatures. No wonder that total ruin speedily ensues. It is really the basis of fact for not a few tales of mythology which men have made up. (W. Kelly, Lectures on the Pentateuch.) God has veiled the awful corruption and we dare not intrude into the secret things.
May we remember that our Lord has told us, As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be when the Son of Man cometh.
The Spirit of God was then pleading with men. His work as the hindering one is indicated in Gen 6:3.
Read, 1Pe 3:20, For Christ indeed once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God; being put to death in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, in which also going He preached to the spirits, which are in prison, heretofore disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noe, while the ark was preparing. This passage does not teach that Christ after His death, went into Hades to preach, but the meaning is that His Spirit through Noah preached to the spirits of men living at that time, and who were then disobedient and are now in prison.
God in His longsuffering waited yet 120 years, during which His Spirit preached through the preacher of righteousness, calling to repentance.
The withdrawing of the Spirit of God is clearly taught in 2Th 2:7. This age will end in the same manner as the age before the flood, the Spirit not always pleading with man.
Jehovah, beholding the earth, saw that the wickedness of man was great, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually. Before we read Jehovahs verdict, for he indeed is flesh. And again, The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is full of violence through them, and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Chapter 10
NOAH
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Gen 6:1-22
As we read the sixth chapter of Genesis, several things are obvious. First, we see sin increasing (Gen 6:1-5). Nine generations had now descended from Adam. We have no way of knowing how many millions of people there were upon the earth; but there were so many that they covered the face of the earth. And wherever men and women were found, sin was evident. The one thing all men had in common in those days, as now, was sin. Polygamy, which began with Lamech (Gen 4:19) was now commonly practiced (Gen 6:1-2). The number of wives men took was limited only by the lusts they could fulfil.
The sons of God, the sons of Seth, began to marry the daughters of men, the daughters of Cain. Those who professed to be and had a name to be the sons of God, sacrificed their principles upon the altar of their lusts and married beautiful, but godless, daughters of Cain (Gen 6:2). And there were giants in the earth in those days (Gen 6:4). The word giants simply means violent, oppressive, fallen men. They had the name of Seth, but the nature of Cain. They laid claim to Gods name and his promises, because their fathers were the sons of God. But they were the sons of Cain, fallen, cursed, violent, wicked men. Godless religious men have always been the most violent,cruel, and wicked of all men.
God saw that…every imagination of the thoughts of (mens) heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5). Sin had reached its utmost depths. Sin was everywhere. Sin was the only appetite, desire, and work of the entire human race, until it repented the Lord that he had made man. Man, who was created in the image and likeness of God, had become repugnant to his holy Creator.
Second, we see the Holy Spirit striving with men (Gen 6:3). The Apostle Peter helps us to understand the meaning of this verse (1Pe 3:20). The Spirits striving with men is the longsuffering of God, calling sinners to repentance by the preaching of the gospel and granting them space for repentance. What mercy! God calls sinners who deserve his immediate wrath to repentance. God gives sinners opportunity to repent. But he will not always call. The day is coming when God will shut the door of mercy. When that happens, when God leaves men and women to themselves, they cannot be saved (Pro 1:23-33; Hos 4:17; Luk 13:24-25).
Third, we see God repenting (Gen 6:6). The first time repentance is mentioned in the Bible, the Person repenting is God himself. Understand what this verse says and you will understand what repentance is. Repentance is a change of mind, a change of attitude, a change of direction, and a change of action.
Obviously, this is an anthropomorphic expression. We know that because we know that God does not change, nor can he be changed. God is immutable (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8). He never changes his mind, or alters his purpose (Job 23:13). Yet, the Lord God does sometimes alter his course of action in providence. Israel, a nation once so greatly blessed of God, is now a nation cursed. As a potter who forms a vessel that does not please him, breaks it in pieces, may be said to repent of his work, so God, to show his aversion to mans wickedness resolved to destroy him. True repentance, then, is a change of direction in a mans heart, in his life, in his desires and in his behavior.
Fourth, we see justice threatening (Gen 6:7). The soul that sinneth, it must die! Justice demands it. A holy, righteous and just God must punish sin. Just as God once flooded this world in a storm of wrath, he will one day consume this world and all who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in vengeful, flaming fire. He will punish the wicked with everlasting destruction (Psa 11:6; 2Th 1:7-10). Yet, there is hope. God is just; but he is gracious too. He is a just God and a Savior!
Fifth, we see grace intervening (Gen 6:8). Grace What a blessed word! This is the first time grace is mentioned in the Bible. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord! Salvation is by grace alone. The cause of Noahs salvation was Gods free and sovereign grace. Our text does not say, God found grace in the eyes of Noah. It says, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord! It is never the other way around. Salvation does not begin with man. It begins with God. Grace is not the result of something man does. Grace is Gods work. Grace is Gods gift. Grace is Gods intervention.
Because God from eternity had set his heart upon Noah, and was determined to be gracious to him, the Lord found a way to save him, though he was resolved to destroy the world. It was grace in God, not goodness in Noah, that saved this man from the flood of Gods wrath.
Grace is here mentioned for the first time by divine purpose. Grace first appears when the sin of man had reached its climax, as if to teach us from the beginning that there is nothing in man which causes God to bestow his grace. Grace is free. Grace is sovereign. Grace is unconditional. The world was lost; but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The world was condemned; but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The world perished; but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. God always has a remnant to whom he will be gracious. Noah alone was Gods remnant in that day (Rom 11:5). Noahs family was blessed, because of their association with him. However, there is no indication in the Scriptures that, at this time, any of them knew God. It appears that only Noah believed God, that the Lord revealed himself to no one else.
Noah is truly a picture of grace. He was the grandson of Methuselah, the great grandson of Enoch, who walked with God and was not, for God took him. His father was Lamech. His name, Noah, means comfort, or rest. The Scripture seems to indicate that his father also was a man of faith (Gen 5:28-29). Lamech had many, many sons and daughters. But the only one who knew God was Noah. Grace does not run in bloodlines. Only Noah believed his fathers God. Noah believed the report of his father (Gen 5:28-29), who both acknowledged Gods curse upon the earth and prophesied that God would work deliverance by Noah. I Gen 6:9 and Heb 11:7, the Holy Spirit tells us ten things about this man, Noah, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
1.He was just. Here again is a word mentioned for the first time. This word does not refer to Noahs character, but to his standing before God. It is true, he behaved justly; but that is mentioned in the next line. This word, just here, refers to Noahs justification by grace upon the grounds of Christs obedience, justification received by faith. As with all believers, it was not Noahs faith that justified him, but Christ, the object of his faith.
2.Noah was perfect in his generation. Perfect means, sincere and upright. Noah was unblemished in his conduct, unspotted by the world, and unaffected by all the generations in which he lived.
3.And Noah walked with God. Like Enoch before him and Abraham after him, Noah lived in the awareness of Gods immediate presence. He walked with God by faith, trusting him, believing his Word, doing his will, in sweet, blessed communion. Heb 11:7 describes Noahs faith.
4.The basis of Noahs faith was the Word of God. He was warned of God of things not seen as yet. Faith must have a foundation. And the foundation of all true faith is the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Noah believed because God spoke; and he believed what God spoke, though it was contrary to reason, experience, and science. God warned him of things not yet seen. His faith truly was remarkable. Noah believed God was about to send a universal flood, with waters covering the entire earth, though it had never rained. He built an ark, though no one had ever seen a boat, by which he, his family, and all the creatures of the earth were saved from destruction. His faith in God condemned all who would not enter the ark, all who believed not God.
5.The character of Noahs faith was reverence. He was moved with fear. Noah feared God, because he believed God. He had an awesome sense of Gods wisdom, holiness, justice, truth, and power. He was overwhelmed with a sense of Gods goodness.
6.The evidence of Noahs faith was obedience. Being moved with fear, (he) prepared an ark. Immediately, without delay, before the first raindrops fell, Noah began building an ark, following the pattern God had given him precisely. Faith is more than a creed. It is more than embracing historical facts and religious dogma. Faith acts upon Gods revelation. Faith is belief in action (Jas 2:14).
7.The result of Noahs faith was the salvation of his house. He prepared an ark to the saving of his house. God always honors faith. We know that there is no such thing as salvation by proxy. Yet, God does honor faith. Noah believed God; and God saved his family. Abraham believed God; and God gave his seed the land of promise. Rahab believed God; and God saved her household. The Canaanite woman believed God; and Christ healed her daughter. Because four men believed God, Christ healed their paralyzed friend (Mat 8:2). The word of promise is yet to be believed – Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house! (Act 16:31).
8.The faith of Noah was a publicly confessed faith. By his faith in and by his obedience to the Lord God, Noah condemned the world. He warned the men and women of his generation of Gods judgment and impending wrath. He called them to faith. He, by the Word of God he preached, condemned them for their unbelief.
9.The reward of Noahs faith is everlasting. He became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. He was made an heir of righteousness of Christ, and a heir of that which righteousness deserves — eternal glory.
10.The means of Noahs salvation was an ark (Gen 6:13-18). Noah and his family were saved by an ark, a ship which God commanded him to build. That ark was a picture of Christ.
There are three arks mentioned in the Word of God. Each was a place of refuge, shelter, and safety, typical of the Lord Jesus Christ, and Gods salvation in and by him. The ark which Noah built secured those who were in it from the vengeance and violent wrath of an angry God. That is Christ our Substitute. The ark of bulrushes protected Gods chosen one, Moses, from the murderous designs of a wicked ruler, Pharoah. That ark is Christ, into whom chosen sinners were placed by our loving Father from eternity. The ark of the covenant sheltered the two tables of Gods holy law, and being covered with blood, was the place of atonement, mercy, and acceptance with God for sinners. That ark is Christ our Mercy-seat. From the beginning there has been but one place of refuge for sinners, only one way of salvation. That refuge, that way, that salvation is Christ! If we would be saved, we must be robed in Christs righteousness and washed in his blood. We must be in Christ by faith. Only Christ can bear our souls above the flood of Gods wrath. Only Christ can save us.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
am 1556, bc 2448
to multiply: Gen 1:28
Reciprocal: 2Ki 8:18 – his wife Mal 2:11 – and hath Mat 24:37 – General 2Pe 2:5 – spared
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Corrupted Earth
Gen 6:1-9
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
As we approach the story of the flood, which God sent as a judgment upon the earth, which was corrupt before God and filled with violence, it will be most interesting for us to note several things relative to the fifth chapter of Genesis which gives us the story of the genealogy from Adam to Noah.
We have worked out a little table to which we call your attention.
Adam was130yrs.oldwhenSethwasborn
Seth was105″””EnoswasbornAdamwas235yrs.old.
Enos was90″””Cainan””””335″”
Cainan was70″””Mahalaleel””””395″”
Mahalaleel was65″””Jared””””460″”
Jared was162″””Enoch””””622″”
Enoch was65″””Methuselah””””687″”
Methuselah was187″””Lamech””””874″”
Lamech was182″””Noah””
Noah was600″””The Flood Came.
From the chart we learn that Adam lived 56 years after the father of Noah was born. This means that Adam could have personally related the story of the creation to Noah’s father. This means, of course, that Adam could have personally instructed Enoch, that wonderful man, who for three hundred years walked with God.
The translation of Enoch took place in the year 987 B.C. Lamech the son of Methuselah died five years before the flood, while Methuselah himself died the year of the flood. Is it not remarkable when we consider that Adam lived long enough to see seven generations born unto himself?
The sad part of this whole story is that in spite of these men who were in touch with Adam and who knew personally his remarkable story, yet, the earth became corrupted and was wicked before God until the very thoughts of the imagination of man’s heart was evil continually.
I. FROM ADAM TO NOAH (Gen 5:1-2)
1. The “Cainites and the Sethites. The story of the immediate descendants of Cain is found in the latter part of the fourth of Genesis. It is interesting to note that Cain’s first son bore the name of earth’s first city. Cain, therefore, gave his attention to building a city. Many cities have been builded since that day, and they are for the most part the center of sin and debauchery.
Among Cain’s descendants was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. Thus musical instruments had an early place in the history of man.
Tubal-Cain was another early descendant, and he was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron. These must have had their place in the homes and buildings of those early days.
As to Seth’s son Enoch, we read: “Then began men to call upon the Name of the Lord.” Thus the two lines began to multiply: the one giving attention to musical instruments and building cities, and the other to worshiping God.
2. The predominance of evil. As men multiplied upon the face of the earth, they gave themselves over to sinning. It is possible that the Cainites contaminated the Sethites. At least, the dominant note just prior to the flood was the wickedness of man was great in the earth.
3. The possibility of good in the midst of evil. The fact of general wickedness did not exclude the godly lives of the few. It was in the midst of these days, more than halfway between the creation and the flood that Enoch walked with God. In the final climax Noah was found to be a just man, and he too walked with God. Thank God, that righteousness is possible in the environment of unrighteousness.
II. THE MIXTURE OF THE RACES (Gen 6:1-2)
1. Some say that our verses set forth a mixture of Sethites and Cainites. This certainly did occur, as has already been suggested. Not only did it occur back there before the flood, but it is occurring before Our very eyes, and it is coming to pass in spite of every command of God to the contrary.
(1) There is the mixture of the saint and sinner in matrimony. This is forbidden of God, for He has said, “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them * * for they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you.”
(2) There is the mixture of saint and sinner in the pleasures of this life. This is Divinely forbidden. God has said, “Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.”
(3) There is the mixture of the orthodox with the heterodox. This is Divinely forbidden. God has said, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house.”
2. Some say that our key verses set forth a mixture of angels and men. This is possibly true. We read of certain spirits who are kept under chains of darkness, and who “were disobedient in the days of Noah.
We are told that as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the Coming of the Son of Man. The fact that the giants, the Anakim, mighty men of renown were on the earth in those days leads to this second contention.
III. THE RESULTS OF UNHALLOWED MARRIAGES (Gen 6:4-5)
1. Giants-mighty men of renown. In the days of Noah, the world had reached a high stage of development. We are not so sure that the world of today has passed beyond the world of Noah’s day. We are ready to grant that it has only been in the last century that invention has wrought such wonders in our own land. We, also, grant that there was a climax of wonders in those olden days immediately preceding the flood. The harvest of the earth was ripe then, even as it is ripe now. God then thrust in His sickle to reap, even as He is now about to thrust it in.
When God pronounced the curse upon that age, He shortened man’s life, saying, “His days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” That period has even been cut down since the days that followed the flood. Christ’s expression, “As it was in the days of Noah” carries with it a tremendous meaning.
2. Wickedness only continually. Advancement in the arts and sciences does not mean advancement in righteousness. Advancement in invention and construction does not mean an increase of holy living. As men became great and mighty, men of renown, they also became vile. Every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually.
With all of our culture and learning and advancement, sin was never more rampant. Our great centers of learning are not centers of spirituality and of holiness. There is a deluge of worldliness that is engulfing our young people today and sweeping them into all excesses of carnal lusts. Modesty and purity seem to have taken flight as advancement in modern invention came in.
IV. GOD’S WORD AS TO HIS SPIRIT IN NOACHIC DAYS (Gen 6:3)
1. The Spirit strove with men of old as He strives today. We do not mean that there is not a special ministry of the Holy Spirit in this age. This is peculiarly the day of the Spirit. Until Christ had gone back to the Father, the Spirit had not come unto men as He came at Pentecost. However, the Holy Spirit was present of old. It was the Spirit of God who moved upon the face of the waters, when God said, “Let there be light.” When God created the heavens and the earth, He sent forth His Spirit and they were created.
In the days from Adam to Noah, the Spirit of God was continually striving with men inasmuch as God said, “[He] shall not always strive with man.”
When we think of the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness, and their sinning against God, we need to remember that in those days, men sinned against the Holy Ghost and grieved Him. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read, “Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: when your fathers tempted Me, proved Me, and saw My works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation.” This plainly declares that it was the Holy Spirit who was sinned against by the fathers. It was the Spirit who was grieved.
2. The Spirit will not always strive. There is a place when the Lord says, “It is enough.” Thus far shall men go and no farther. When we think of the flood and of God destroying men from the face of the earth, let us remember that God waited while the Spirit was striving with men. The flood was God’s judgment against sin, but it was God’s judgment only after every call of the Spirit had conclusively proved that man was altogether set against the Almighty.
V. GOD’S CHANGE IN HIS METHODS OF DEALING WITH MEN (Gen 6:6-7)
1. God repented Himself. Repentance carries with it always a change of mind with a resultant change of action. In the case of Nineveh, God sent Jonah to proclaim, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” “When, however, in response to Jonah’s warning, Nineveh put on ‘sackcloth and ashes, and repented before the Lord, believing in God and proclaiming the fact, then we read, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not.”
Had Nineveh repented and God had not repented, He would have unjustly destroyed the city. As soon as Nineveh changed her course of action, God changed His. All of this is set forth by the Holy Spirit in Ezekiel. “If the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.” God is a just God, and He cannot destroy the guiltless. Thus it was that God repented Himself concerning the people of Noah’s day.
2. God grieved for man. How tender is Gen 6:6, “And it grieved Him at His heart”! God had no pleasure in the death of the wicked then, and He has not now. We read on this account, that “the longsuffering of God waited * * while the ark was a preparing.” God had already pronounced man’s destruction, and yet He still tarried giving man an opportunity to turn unto the Lord.
Why do the wicked live so long? It is because God has given them every opportunity to turn from their evil ways. Between every man and hell God casts the Cross of Christ, the strivings of the Spirit and the continued calls of God to repentance. It is the goodness of God that leadeth men to repentance.
VI. GOD’S GRACE IN OPERATION (Gen 6:8)
1. It was grace to subsequent generations to destroy man from the face of the earth. After the sons of God had taken unto them wives of the daughters of men, and children were born, the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown. When God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, it was necessary for God in His mercy and grace toward those who should follow to put away the ungodly.
God more than once, in the history of man, seeing that iniquity had come to the full, destroyed certain nations. The very men of our day are hastening toward a corruption which will make it necessary soon for God to send tremendous judgments in which a great portion of mankind will be slain. If this were not done, the Millennial Age would be corrupted by the unrepentant and sin-hardened of this age.
2. It was grace which spared Noah. God found Noah righteous, but not perfect. However, Noah knew God and walked with Him. Therefore, God could not destroy him and his along with the people of his generation.
3. It was grace which led God to keep a seed unto Adam through which He might replenish the earth.
God had made His promise in the Garden of Eden, and every promise is yea and amen in Christ Jesus. Had Noah not been spared, Christ could not have been born of Adam’s line. The Book of Luke gives us the genealogy, however, from Adam and Eve by way of Seth through Noah and Abraham and David down to Mary of whom Christ was born.
God moves in a wonderful way to perform His marvels of grace. His ways may be full of mystery to men, but in every age He is working out His eternal purposes and plans. Satan may have thought himself victor, when he saw the corrupted earth; however, the purposes and pledges of God prevailed.
VII. THE BIBLE’S DESCRIPTION OF NOAH (Gen 6:9)
1. Noah was a just man. This does not mean that Noah in himself was spotless and without sin. Noah was just. 1. Because he was justified through his sacrificial offerings. We know that Noah sacrificed after the ark rested on Mount Ararat, and we have every reason to believe, therefore, that he sacrificed before the flood.
2. Noah was perfect in his generation. “His lineage from Adam down was uncorrupted from any contamination brought by marriages described in the early verses of chapter six.
3. Noah walked with God. This is a glorious statement, when we consider that the world knew not God. Once more we urge that Noah could not have walked with God had he not been a man who had access unto the Father through the anticipated Blood of Christ.
4. Noah was a preacher of righteousness. While the ark was building Noah preached righteousness. He did not, however, preach the righteousness of the flesh, but the righteousness which is by faith in Him.
5. Noah was a man who obeyed God. We read in Gen 6:22 : “According to all that God commanded him, so did he.” While other men were fulfilling the lusts of their flesh and their mind, Noah was fulfilling the will and work of God.
6. Noah was a man of faith. We read in Hebrews, “By faith Noah * * moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” Noah believed God, and his faith was counted for righteousness.
We have suggested the above characteristics in the life of Noah, hoping that some who are discouraged as to the possibilities of a spiritual life in this age of sin may be inspired thereby. What was possible to Noah in those days of corruption is possible to each of us now.
AN ILLUSTRATION
THE DOG AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
“Dr. Moffat, the celebrated missionary to South Africa, tells an. amusing story of a lad who had been converted by reading the New Testament.
“One day he came to Dr. Moffat in much distress, telling him that their big watch dog had gotten hold of the Book and had torn a page out of it. Dr. Moffat tried to comfort him, by saying that he could get another Testament, “But the boy was not at all comforted. ‘Think of the dog,’ he said.
“Dr. Moffat, supposing the boy thought that the paper would do the dog harm, laughed and said, “If your dog can. crunch an ox bone, he is not going to be hurt by a piece of paper.’
“‘Oh, Papa Moffat,’ he cried, ‘I was once a bad boy. If I had an enemy, I hated him, and everything in me wanted to kill him. Then I got the New Testament in my heart, and began to love everybody and forgive all my enemies, and now the dog, the great big hunting dog, has got the blessed Book in him, and will begin to love the lions and the tigers; and let them help themselves to the sheep and the oxen.’
“What a beautiful tribute this African boy, out of the simplicity of his heart, paid to the power of the Bible!”-The Indian Christian.
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Subdivision 3. (Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 8:1-22; Gen 9:1-29; Gen 10:1-32; Gen 11:1-9.) NOAH.
The resurrection of a world, and the threefold division of mankind after the flood. Typically, the saint raised up with Christ (the ark).
In Noah, we have a plain figure of resurrection, the whole world passing away also in the judgment of the flood, and a new world emerging from the baptismal waters. The apostle Peter teaches us to see in this a type of salvation (1Pe 3:20-21), and to the man in Christ, risen with Him, old things are passed away, and all things become new. The figure is here very plain, although many a detail may be hidden from us.
1.
God’s purpose and provision are the subject of the first section. There are two subsections, in the first of which we find the whole world one in evil, and all the fashion of man’s thoughts but that; on the other hand, God’s election of grace in Noah. In the second, we have the ark as His means of salvation, -plainly Christ, in whom we have already met and passed through the judgment, dead without dying, in His precious death for us. Indeed, the type speaks more fully than this of what atonement is, the gopher-wood not only giving us the tree cut down, but the “copher” also with which the seams are pitched, the very word for “atonement,” probably the resin from the tree, (whether or not the cypress, as the ancients thought,) at least shows the need of more than death for this.
2.
In the second section, what seems marked is, the solemn contrast between those within and those outside the ark of salvation. God calls the one to enter, and Jehovah -the covenant God -shuts them in. On the one hand the call of God, on the other the obedience of Noah, are certainly the marked features of the first subsection.
The second, shows the death which comes through disobedience, the increase of the flood, the ark going on the face of the waters, until the earth is covered.
3.
The third section gives typically the resurrection part, and is naturally much larger and more various. It speaks of the ground of resurrection (the resurrection of Christ) upon which faith now builds, beyond all possible floods -high ground and “holy ground,” which “Ararat” is said to mean. Nothing is so holy and so productive of holiness as the rest of the gospel. And here we find also the sanctification proper to it detailed. There are five subsections:
1. The new beginning is in rest: the ark grounds upon Ararat, and the new earth begins to be visible.
2. The raven shows us the flesh still in the believer, at home in a scene desolated by judgment, and using the very cross itself only as a means of enjoying the world better. The dove is plainly the figure of the Spirit in a world such as this, -the type, at once, of love and sorrow. The Spirit and flesh are here seen in essential opposition. In a world upon which the waters of judgment rest, the dove can find no rest. The second time, she brings back the olive-leaf -the assurance of fruitfulness, and judgment past. The third time, she leads them in taking possession of the new earth, returning to the ark no more.
3. Liberty for these voyagers to the new land is now accordingly at hand, although Noah waits for the word of God to sanction its enjoyment, and when he goes forth, consecrates it and the earth with his altar (the first time we read of one) and his sacrifice, Christ typically, in person and work, the material of worship. In the sweet savor of this, is the pledge of abiding blessing, spite of what man has been seen to be. As on the third day of the creation-series, the dry ground is to bring forth fruit.
4. But there are still conditions of fruitfulness, and we come now to consider them: the order in which we reach it suggests the conditions under which it is to be attained. (Notice that, as in the last subsection we have “Jehovah,” the covenant-name, it is now “God” blessed and “God” spake.) And first, we need to know that fruitfulness is a gift in grace, and to be received, therefore, as such in faith: He blessed, and said, “Be fruitful.” Then sovereignty is restored; they are to be masters in their new position; even as all things work together for good to those that love God. Death too serves: it becomes now, as not before, the food of life, -a type, thank God, most easy to realize. Thus are we sustained, and energy is given to us. And now the deeds of the flesh are to be judged, the image of God in man is to be maintained and honored. Finally, all hindrances thus removed, the fruit is reached.
5. And now, as the token of God’s covenant between Himself and the earth, the bow is ordained in the heavens. It bands the clouds which might seem to threaten the renewal of a judgment which can return no more. The light (and God is light) is seen and displayed in its glory upon the storm-cloud, as it was in the cross. And so also to the soul exercised thereby, the blessing is sealed to us in the glory of the cloud. Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope. God is seen and realized in it. The God who brings the cloud is the God with whom we are in covenant; and all things serve Him.
4.
The trial of the new world is next seen, and weakness and failure are soon apparent. Typically, it is the history of the Church, the company gathered on the ground of that resurrection of Christ which is the assurance of the work done for us having been accepted. The division into diverse families of that one family brought through the flood is soon accomplished. Failure begins with the head of newly constituted government -with Noah. Noah’s snare is the abundance of the new-blessed earth; and it is here the earth-side of the heavenly life that we have to do with. But this earth-side is Nazariteship; and the Nazarite must drink no wine: falling by this, the stimulus of nature, the nakedness of nature is discovered to our shame. Such failure in the Church brings out the character of those who in exposing it reveal their own profanity. Ham is the “black” -the “sun-burnt” -one darkened by the light; and the light, if not received, becomes a source of darkness to the soul. And Ham -it is noted -is the father of Canaan, the “trader,” as his name means. Canaan is, in the professing church, its fruit -the trader in divine things: a sad history sketched in the fewest possible words.
Noah’s prophecy, on awaking from his wine, passes over Ham -the indefinite multitude of mere natural men, -to fix upon Canaan its denunciation. Shem and Japheth seem to give us in their various blessing two tendencies which are apt to be sundered and should not be. Shem’s is the recipient contemplative life, whose danger is, to run into the mystical: Japheth’s is the energetic, practical life, which, in its one-sidedness, tends to divorce itself from faith. In the blessing of Shem, it is Shem’s God, Jehovah, who is blessed, as it is indeed the highest blessedness of faith that it has God for its portion and its praise; while Japheth’s blessing is in enlargement and dwelling in the tents of Shem, for the practical life finds its true home in faith alone, and true service is but worship in its outflow among men.
5.
That the genealogies come under the number which speaks of God’s governmental ways will hardly be strange to any. We have here the distribution of the nations in their lands. 1. Japheth, the type of energy and independence, gains at present little notice, passing away very much from the central point of sight to the outlying border-lands. 2. In Ham’s family, we have the earliest development of the world-empires, and the most open opposition to God. 3. Shem, (the “name”) to whom Jehovah is revealed, has fittingly the third place: he is marked as the father of all the children of Eber, (passage,”) the pilgrim race.
6.
Lastly, here we have the history of Babel, without doubt the picture of Babylon the Great, though not in the full development of the book of Revelation. The account is remarkable for its clearness and simplicity. The process by which the professing church settled down in the world, and then built up for itself a worldly name and power, could scarcely be described in plainer terms. How with one consent they turned their backs upon the sunrise (2Pe 1:19), and, leaving the rugged and difficult places in which they were first nurtured -too painful for flesh and blood, -descended to the easier if lower level of the world; -how, settling there, ease and abundance wrought in them desire to possess themselves, in security, of the earth, and make themselves a name in it; how Babylon thus was built, a city after Cain’s pattern, whose builder and maker God was not, and a tower of strength, human, and not divine: all this, he who runs may read. Let us notice, further, that this is a carnal imitation and anticipation of God’s thoughts, and that thus the earthly city usurps the titles and prerogatives of the heavenly one. But Babylon cannot be built of the “living stone,” which is the God-made material for building; they have moved from the quarries of the hills, and must be content to manufacture less durable “brick” out of the mere clay which the plain affords: they have brick for stone, and slime (or bitumen) for mortar -i.e., not the cementing of the Spirit, the true Unifier, but the worldly and selfish motives which compact men together, and are but fuel for the fire, in the day that the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
This is just the Catholic church of antiquity, not many generations after the apostolic. The unity whereof it boasted was not God’s, and if God came down to see what man was building, it was not to strengthen, but to destroy -not to compact, but scatter. The many tongues of Protestantism are but His judgment upon the builders of Babel; its multitudinous sects but the alternative of the oppressive tyranny with which when united she laid her yoke upon the minds and consciences of men, and under which the blood of the saints ran like water. They are but a temporary hindrance, moreover, for at last we find her saying, “I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” Then, however, her doom shall be at hand: “in one day shall her plagues come upon her.”
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
THE FIRST CULMINATION OF SIN
DEGENERATION
The results of civilization were morally downward instead of upward, even the Sethites becoming corrupted in time as seen in the fact that after Enochs translation only Noah and his family were found faithful. Just as the translation of Enoch was a type of that of the church when Jesus comes, so the moral condition of the world after his translation is a type of that which shall prevail after the translation of the Church (see Luk 18:8; 2Th 2:1-17; 2Ti 3:1-17; 2Pe 3:1-18).
To return to Gen 5:28, note that the Lamech there spoken of is not the descendant of Cain previously mentioned, but the son of Methuselah in the line of Seth. The name Noah means comfort, but how do Lamechs words testify of the sad experiences of men in those days on account of sin? What feature of sin is mentioned at the opening of chapter 6? Some think the Sethites are meant by the sons of God, but others regard it as a reference to fallen angels who kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation (Jud 1:6) and consorted with human beings. Pembers work, Earths Earliest Ages, presents arguments for this view which are corroborated by such scientific facts as are given by Sir J. William Dawson in The Meeting Place of Geology and History. In consequence of this awful sin, to what determination does Jehovah come (Gen 6:3)? But what respite, nevertheless, is He still willing to bestow?
Gen 6:4 is sadly interesting. The Hebrew for giants is nephilim (RV), which means fallen ones, and in the judgment of some refers to the sons of God or fallen angels of the preceding verses. A slightly different punctuation makes the verse read thus: There were nephilim [fallen ones] in the earth in those days, and also after that. After that seems to refer to Num 13:31-33, where in the report of the spies to Moses they speak of the men of Canaan as of great stature, adding: And there we saw the nephilim, the sons of Anak which come of the nephilim. This suggests that the culminating sin of the Canaanites was not different from that of the antediluvians. Observe further that the offspring of these sinful unions became the mighty men which were of old, the men of renown, from which possibly the ancients obtained their ideas of the gods and demi- gods of which the classics treat.
How does Gen 6:5 define the extent of the wickedness of these days? Of course, when Jehovah is spoken of as repenting (Gen 6:6), the language is used in an accommodated sense. Jehovah never repents or changes His mind, but His dealings with men as governed by their conduct appear to them as if He did so. What now becomes His purpose? Who alone is excepted? What shows that even in this case it is not of merit?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
The Sons of God Married the Daughters of Men
There came a time when the righteous began to intermarry with the unrighteous ( Gen 6:2 ). They chose their mates because of their physical attractiveness instead of their spiritual strength. This wrong motive for marriage turned the hearts of the righteous away from God (compare 1Ki 11:1-3 ). People also had their hearts filled with wickedness and the earth was filled with violence ( Gen 6:5 ; Gen 6:11 ). God limited the amount of time he would strive with man to bring him back to recognition of his sins and turn him back ( Gen 6:3 ). Destruction of the earth was brought by God because of all the wickedness of man ( 2Pe 2:5 ).
God does have a limit to his patience with man’s wickedness. He will destroy the earth when he can no longer tolerate man’s sinfulness ( Gen 6:5-7 ; 2Pe 3:8-10 ). In the days of Noah, God was sorry, or repented, that he had made man. He did not repent in the sense of turning away from evil. Instead, he turned from fellowship with man because of wickedness.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Gen 6:1. For the glory of Gods justice, and for a warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostacy from God, and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice; for the maintaining of the honour of Gods government. When men began to multiply This was the effect of the blessing, Gen 1:28, and yet mans corruption so abused this blessing that it was turned into a curse.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 6:2. Sons of God. Some understand this expression of Seths sons, who intermarried with Cains daughters, but assign no reason for their being called the daughters of men. Others understand it, and with greater propriety, of the sons of great men, who are repeatedly called Elohim, or gods, in the scriptures. So Exo 21:6; Exo 22:8; Exo 22:28; and Psalms 82., where the same term occurs. Hence the sons of the judges, or great men, seized the daughters of the poor; and rapes, prostitution, and violence were without restraint. Being gigantic in stature, and having no regular government, they filled the earth with murder and robbery. All our Saxon chiefs claimed descent from Odin, and all the Greeks from Jupiter. Ulyssus says in Ovid, Nam mihi Laertes pater est, Arcesius illi, Jupiter huic. Metam, lib. 13. ver. 145.
Gen 6:4. Giants. These the poets call children of the earth, or earth-born, as is the etymon of the Greek . They were men of prodigious stature, said to have made war with the gods; and with that view, they raised ladders towards heaven, and piled rocks on rocks. When the thunderbolts of Jupiter threw down their works, those rocks which fell into the sea became islands, and those which rolled on the earth became mountains. Ovid. Meta. lib. 1. Plato mentions this war of the giants or Titanes in Critias, which he calls Atlantic, as having happened before the deluge of Noah. Arnobius in his first book against the gentiles, after Berosus, describes these giants as greater monsters of cruelty and crimes than of stature. The late Rev. W. Ward, seventeen years a missionary at Serampore in India, has written the history of the Mythology of the Hindoos, in which he says The giants [before the deluge] sprang from Ditee. He adds, that the sixth, seventh, and eighth incarnation of Vishnoo was to destroy the giants.The Hebrews call the giants before the flood the Nephilim or apostates, the Gibborim or mighty men. Those of Palestine are called the Anachim. They were beyond all dispute from nine to ten feet in stature.The origin of pagan fable is founded on facts stated by Moses. Those monsters mocked at the Ark, and filled the earth with violence; and when driven to the summits of the mountains, piled rocks in vain to gain a momentary reprieve from the high rolling tides of the deluge. Heaven retaliated, laughing at their calamity, and mocking at their fears. These are the Rephaim or the dead, who sunk under the waters, and are now associated with all the inhabitants of hell. Job 26:5-6. Pro 2:18.
Gen 6:6. It repentedit displeased the Lord; or, the creation of the sons of Adam was abhorred of the Lord; but Augustine prefers the first reading, as implying a change in Gods conduct. He had created man to live, but now determined on his destruction.
Gen 6:12. All flesh had corrupted its way. Had there been ten righteous persons in Sodom, it had not been destroyed: now there were, after Methuselah was gone, but eight who remained in covenant with God. Therefore the Almighty took them into his ark, and destroyed the wicked. The ark was a type of the church. Food and safety, life and righteousness were there. It brought its family safely through the waves and storms, from the old to a new and peaceful world. By the like figures of wood and water, the cross and baptism, are we now saved, and placed under the covenant protection of the Lord. 1Pe 3:20-21.
Gen 6:14. Make thee an ark of gopher wood: the idea of the precise species of wood seems lost. Our countryman, Mr. Evelyn, contends for the cypress tree. Of this the Indians make their war canoes; for a single tree when excavated, will hold sixty men.
As to Mr. Lawrences objection, in his medical lectures, against the capacity of the ark to hold the creatures, the learned Budus of Paris has written a volume on the subject in Latin. Moses gives us here the dimensions of the ark, 300 cubits long, 50 high, and 30 broad; and the cubit of those gigantic men from the elbow to the end of the long finger, could not be less than 30 inches. Others are of opinion that the antediluvian cubit was reckoned the third part of the stature of those men, who may be supposed to have been at least eight or nine feet high; so that according to these dimensions the ark must have been equal to ten or twelve first-rate ships of war; and the long space of 120 years, in which the ark was in building, coincides with its magnitude. Prodigious superstructure! No one but a reigning prince, like Noah, could have built it. It was divided into three stories, the better to accommodate the different species of creatures, and to store up what was necessary for their subsistence. It drew 15 cubits of water, and rose 15 above the surface. It would float in so quiescent a state as to allow the beasts to couch on the deck. This stupendous fabric was piloted and preserved by the special care of heaven; and oh how awful, that many of the scoffing age should have assisted in its construction, and perished at last in the flood.The two best writers on this subject are Budus and bishop Wilkins.
Of its existence, antiquity is agreed. Abydenus, and Berosus a priest of Babylon, and Herodotus have all recorded the fact.Vide Euseb. Prp. lib. 9. c. 11, 12. Origen in Alexandria, and Jerome at Rome, have rebutted the objections started in their day. And as the Alps of Italy have been washed by the tides, how could either men or beasts be saved without an Ark? See Gen 8:3.
Yet we concede, that many creatures might be saved on floats of timber, as aquatic birds, toads also, for a hundred of these have been found in the great coal of Dudley; a fact which I affirm on conversations with practical men, after a residence in those coalfields. Serpents and vermin might partially subsist on the waters, and find some shelter in the earth during the flux and reflux of the tides. Nor do I see any thing against the text of Moses, to admit that creatures might be saved on icebergs, or on the mountains of Asia, and of South America, which far exceed the Alps in elevation.See more, Gen 1:15; Gen 8:3.
REFLECTIONS.
The increase of wicked men is attended we see with an increase of wickedness. Polygamy was the first bane of society, and its consequences are still the same. It degrades a woman from her rank in life, and fosters the bad propensities of lust, cruelty, wrong, and revenge. The children born in whoredom and concubinage receive an education calculated to imbitter families and disturb the state. Hence large cities, large associations of people must be governed by a rigorous police, and by a discipline unrelaxed, or they are lost beyond a name.
An illicit intercourse between the sexes, unrestrained by public shame, and unpunished by law, is attended with the total loss of virtue and religion, and it is the sure forerunner of destruction to families and nations. It is better that a few delinquents should suffer, than a whole people be destroyed: for every other kind of wickedness is appendant to crimes of this nature.
God withdraws his grace or the striving of his Spirit from men who are resolved to keep their sins. So he did to the heathen world, who did not choose to retain the patriarchal knowledge and covenant of God; he gave them up to work all manner of uncleanness with greediness. So he will do still: those who slight his calls and grace shall be abandoned to their own way, till body and soul are involved in destruction. Shun then, oh my soul, the slightest propensity to evil, for whoever dallies with the smallest streams of sin, is soon attracted by the torrent, and swallowed up in the whirlpool of criminal dissipation.
Yet the Father of mercies is slow to punish the wicked, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. When the ordinary means failed to effectuate their conversion, he employed the extraordinary: having translated Enoch to increase the faith and raise the hopes of men, he now strengthened the preaching of righteous Noah by the terrors of a rising ark, and spared the guilty age a hundred and twenty years. Oh how good and gracious is the Lord, even to the evil and unthankful! We know not whether his longsuffering, or his menaces of total destruction, be the higher character of his mercy to wicked and unreasonable men.
St. Peter associates the old world with the scoffers in the gospel age. Hence it is presumed, if the sign of the ark occasioned a moments terror, because the vengeance was delayed, it was soon derided as a phenomenon of enthusiasm, and an object of universal laughter. Let us beware of men who scoff at warnings, and at Gods word; it is one sad mark that they are forsaken of Gods Spirit, and that their destruction will soon follow.
But Noah, poor persecuted and derided Noah, found grace in the eyes of the Lord, who always provides for the safety of his saints before he destroys the wicked. Let every sinner then fly to the ark, to Jesus Christ and his covenant, for there and there only is salvation; and God is always nearest to his people in the evil day.
But was Ham, a very immodest son, saved in the ark? And were myriads of unoffending infants destroyed by the flood? Then we learn, that children are very much benefited by their parents piety, and very much injured by their parents sins. What an argument for the heads of houses to support integrity of character, and live to God, that their children may be blessed: and what an argument for children to be righteous, that they may inherit all the blessings promised to the faithful seed!
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Genesis 6
We have, now, arrived at a deeply-important and strongly-marked division of our book. Enoch has passed off the scene. His walk, as a stranger on earth, has terminated in his translation to heaven. He was taken away before human evil had risen to a head, and, therefore, before the divine judgement had been poured out. How little influence his course and translation had upon the world, is manifest from the first two verses of chapter 6. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
The mingling of that which is of God with that which is of man, is a special form of evil, and a very effectual engine, in Satan’s hand, for marring the testimony of Christ on the earth. This mingling may frequently wear the appearance of something very desirable; it may often look like a wider promulgation of that which is of God – a fuller and a more vigorous outgoing of a divine influence – a something to be rejoiced in rather than to be deplored: but our judgement as to this will depend entirely upon the point of view from which it is contemplated. If we look at it in the light of God’s presence, we cannot possibly imagine, that an advantage is gained when the people of God mingle themselves with the children of this world; or when the truth of God is corrupted by human admixture. Such is not the divine method of promulgating truth, advancing the interests of those, who ought to occupy the place of witnesses for Him on the earth. Separation from all evil is God’s principle; and this principle can never be infringed without serious damage to the truth.
In the narrative now before us, we see that the union of the sons of God with the daughters of men led to the most disastrous consequences. True, the fruit of that union seemed exceedingly fair, in man’s judgement, as we read, “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown;” yet, God’s judgement was quite different. He seeth not as man seeth. His thoughts are not as ours. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Such was man’s condition before God – “evil only” – “evil continually.” So much for the mingling of the holy with the profane. Thus it must ever be. If the holy seed will not maintain its purity, all must be forfeited as regards testimony on the earth. Satan’s first effort was to frustrate God’s purpose by putting the holy seed to death, and when that failed; he sought to gain his end by corrupting it.
Now it is of the deepest moment, that my reader should clearly understand the aim, the character, and the result of this union between “the sons of God” and the daughters of men. There is great danger, at the present day of compromising truth for the sake of union. This should be carefully guarded against. There can be no union attained at the expense of truth. The true Christian’s motto should ever be – “maintain truth at all cost; if union can be promoted in this way, so much the better, but maintain the truth.” The principle of expediency, on the contrary may be thus enunciated, – “promote union at all cost; if truth can be maintained as well, so much the better, but promote union.” This latter principle can only be carried out at the expense of all that is divine in the way of testimony.* There can, evidently, be no true testimony where truth is forfeited; and hence, in the case of the antediluvian world, we see that the unhallowed union between the holy and the profane-between that which was divine and that which was human, only had the effect of bringing the evil to a head, and then God’s judgement was poured out.
{*We should ever bear in mind, that “the wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable.” (James 3: 17) The wisdom which is from beneath would put “peaceable” first, and, therefore, it can never be pure.}
“The Lord said, I will destroy man.” Nothing less would do. There must be the entire destruction of that which had corrupted God’s way on the earth. “The mighty men, and men of renown,” must all be swept away, without distinction. “all flesh” must be set aside, as utterly unfit for God. “The end of all flesh is come before me.” It was not merely the end of some flesh; no, it was all corrupt, in the sight of Jehovah – all irrecoverably bad. It had been tried, and found wanting; and the Lord announces His remedy to Noah in these words, “Make thee an ark of gopher wood.”
Thus was Noah put in possession of God’s thoughts about the scene around him. The effect of the word of God was to lay bare the roots of all that which man’s eye might rest upon with complacency and pride. The human heart might swell with pride, and the bosom heave with emotion, as the eye ran down along the brilliant ranks of men of art, men of skill, “men of might “men of renown.” The sound of the harp and the organ might send a thrill through the whole soul, while at the same time, the ground was cultivated, and man’s necessities were provided for in such a way as to contradict every thought in reference to approaching judgement. But oh I those solemn words, “I will destroy”; What a heavy gloom they would necessarily cast over the glittering scene! Could not man’s genius invent some way of escape? Could not “the mighty man deliver himself by his much strength?” Alas! no: there was ONE way of escape, but it was revealed to faith, not to sight, not to reason, not to imagination.
By faith Noah, being warned of God, of things not seen as yet, moved with fear (eulabetheis) prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is of faith; (Heb 11: 7) The word of God brings His light to shine upon all that by which man’s heart is deceived. It removes completely the gilding with which the serpent covers a vain, deceitful, passing world over which hangs the sword of divine judgement. But it is only faith that will be “warned of God,” when the things of which He speaks are “not seen as yet; Nature is governed by what it sees – it is governed by it’s senses, Faith is governed by the pure word of God; (inestimable treasure in this dark world!”) This gives stability, let outward appearances be what they may. When God spoke to Noah of judgement impending, there was no sign of it. It was “not seen as yet;” but the word of God made it a present reality to the heart that was enabled to mix that word with faith. Faith does not wait to see a thing, ere it believes, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
All that the man of faith needs, is to know that God has spoken; this imparts perfect certainty to his soul. “Thus saith the Lord,” settles everything. A single line of Sacred Scripture is an abundant answer to all the reasonings and all the imaginations of the human mind; and when one has the word of God as the basis of his convictions, he may calmly stand against the full tide of human opinion and prejudice. It was the word of God which sustained the heart of Noah during his long course of service; and the same word has sustained the millions of God’s saints, from that day to this, in the face of the world’s contradiction. Hence, we cannot set too high a value upon the word of God. Without it, all is dark uncertainty; with it, all is light and peace. Where it shines, it marks out for the man of God a sure and blessed path; where it shines not, one is left to wander amid the bewildering mazes of human tradition. How could Noah have “preached righteousness,” for 120 years, if he had not had the word of God as the ground of his preaching? How could he have withstood the scoffs and sneers of an infidel world? How could he have persevered in testifying of “judgement to come,” when not a cloud appeared on the world’s horizon? Impossible. The word of God was the ground on which he stood, and “the Spirit of Christ” enabled him to occupy, with holy decision, that elevated and immovable ground.
And now, my beloved Christian reader, what else have we wherewith to stand, in service for Christ, in an evil day, like the present? Surely, nothing; nor do we want ought else. The word of God, and the Holy Ghost by whom, alone, that word can be understood, applied or used, are all we want to equip us perfectly-to furnish us thoroughly, “to all good works,” under whatever head those works may range themselves. (2 Tim 3: 16, 17) What rest for the heart? What relief from all Satan’s imagery, and man’s imaginations! God’s pure, incorruptible, eternal word May our hearts adore Him for the inestimable treasure “Every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil continually;” but God’s word as the simple resting-place of Noah’s heart.
“God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me……Make thee an ark of gopher wood. Here was man’s ruin, and God’s remedy. Man had been allowed to pursue his career to the utmost limit, to bring his principles and ways to maturity. The leaven had worked and filled the mass. The evil had reached its climax. “All flesh” had become so bad that it could not be worse; wherefore nothing remained but for God to destroy it totally; and, at the same time, to save all those who should be found, according to His eternal counsels, linked with “the eighth person” – the only righteous man then existing. This brings out the doctrine of the cross, in a very vivid manner. There we find, at once, God’s judgement of nature with all its evil; and, at the same time, the revelation of His saving grace, in all its fullness, and in all its perfect adaptation to those who have really reached the lowest point of their moral condition, as judged by Himself. (The day-spring from on high hath visited us.” (Luke 1: 78) Where? Just where we are, as sinners. God has come down to the very deepest depths of our ruin. There is not a point in all the sinner’s state to which the light of that blessed day-spring has not penetrated; but, if it has thus penetrated, it must, by virtue of what it is, reveal our true character. The light must judge everything contrary to itself; but, while it does so, it also “gives the knowledge of salvation through the remission of sins.” The cross, while it reveals God’s judgement upon” all flesh,” reveals His salvation for the lost and guilty sinner. Sin is perfectly judged – the sinner perfectly saved – God perfectly revealed, and perfectly glorified, in the cross.
If my reader will turn, for a moment, to the First Epistle of Peter, he will find much light thrown upon this entire subject. At the third chapter, verse 18, we read, “for Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which (Spirit) he went and preached (through Noah) to the spirits (now) in prison; which once were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, wherein few, that is eight souls, were saved through water (di udatos); to which the anti type (antitupon) baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, (as by water,)* but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who, having gone into heaven, is at the right hand of God, angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject to him.”
{*It is impossible to over-estimate the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, as seen in the way in which He treats the ordinance of baptism, in the above remarkable passage. We know the evil use which bas been made of baptism, – we know the false place it has gotten in the thoughts of many, – we know how that the efficacy, which belongs only to the blood of Christ, has been attributed to the water of baptism, – we know how the regenerating grace of the Holy Ghost has been transferred to water baptism; and, with the with the knowledge of all this, we cannot but be struck with the way in which the Spirit of God guards the subject, by stating, that it is not the mere washing away of the filth of the flesh, as by water, But the answer of a good conscience toward God,” which “answer” we get, not by baptism, how important soever it may be, as an ordinance of the kingdom, but “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.”
Baptism, I need hardly say, as an ordinance of divine institution, and in its divinely-appointed place, is most important and deeply significant; but when we find men, in one way or another, putting the figure in place of the substance, we are bound to expose the work of Satan by the light of the word of God.}
This is a most important passage. It sets the doctrine of the ark and its connection with the death of Christ very distinctly before us. As in the deluge, so in the death Christ, all the billows and waves of divine judgement passed over that which, in itself, was without sin. The creation was buried beneath the flood of Jehovah’s righteous wrath; and the Spirit of Christ exclaims, “All thy billows and thy waves have gone over me.” (Ps. 42: 7) Here is a profound truth for the heart and conscience of a believer. “All God’s billows and waves” passed over the spotless Person of the Lord Jesus, when He hung upon the cross; and, as a most blessed consequence, not one of them remains to pass over the person of the believer. At Calvary we see, in good truth, “the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven opened.” “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts.” Christ drank the cup, and endured the wrath perfectly. He put Himself, judicially, under the full weight of all His people’s liabilities, and gloriously discharged them. The belief of this gives settled peace to the soul. If the Lord Jesus has met all that could be against us, if He has removed out of the way every hindrance, if He has put away sin, if He has exhausted the cup of wrath and judgement on our behalf, if He has cleared the prospect of every cloud, should we not enjoy settled peace? Unquestionably. Peace is our unalienable portion. To us belong the deep and untold blessedness, and holy security, which redeeming love can bestow on the righteous ground of Christ’s absolutely accomplished work.
Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch
Gen 6:1-4. The Angel Marriages.This section belongs to J, but to what stratum is not clear. In its nakedly mythological character it is quite unlike anything else in the history. It is obscure at some points, probably through abbreviation, and the phrase the men of renown implies that a cycle of stories was current about the Nephilim. It does not join on to the preceding genealogy, since the opening words point to a time much earlier than that of Noah. It serves at present as an introduction to the story of the Flood; matters had come to such a pass that nothing but the almost complete extermination of the race could cure the evil. But it does not really lead up to this, for the writer does not imply that these unions resulted in a progeny of monstrous wickedness. It is a kind of coarser parallel to the story of the forbidden fruit; in both the Divinely-appointed limits are transgressed. Here we read of union between the sons of God and the daughters of men, i.e. between angels and women. The sons of God (Job 1:5*) are those who belong to the Elohim order of being, the immortals whose nature is spirit as contrasted with mortals whose nature is flesh. This is the oldest interpretation, and it is that now generally accepted. It is in harmony with the general use of the term, and if we interpreted it to mean the pious Sethites, the daughters of men would be Cainite women, a limitation for which there is no warrant; moreover the mere intermixture of human races would not produce the Nephilim, who are obviously the offspring of unnatural unions. Certain angels then, spirit though they were, inflamed by the beauty of women, took them at their will in marriage. Thus a race of demigods was produced, the Nephilim (a name of uncertain meaning), the ancient heroes far-famed for their exploits. But this blending of spirit and flesh, of human nature with that of the Elohim, sets at nought the barriers fixed by Yahweh in the very constitution of things. At present the Divine substance, the property of the Elohim (hence called by Yahweh my spirit) is dwelling in men. But this is not to continue since man is only flesh. How Yahweh proposed to retrieve the heavenly essence which had been mingled with the earthly is not said; the reduction of human life to 120 years, which is what the last clause of Gen 6:3 seems to mean, would not secure its elimination, as it would be passed on with the propagation of the species. The clause may be a gloss. The blame apparently attaches to the angels only, the women being victims of their lawless lust, and the original story may have mentioned the penalty inflicted on them. Such penalties we hear of elsewhere (Isa 24:21 f., Psa 8:2, cf. Psa 5:8) for the misrule of the angels and the consequent miseries of the world and Israel in particular. (For further discussion the editor may refer to his Faded Myths, chap. iv.)
Gen 6:3. Very difficult, and the text is corrupt. The rendering strive may be set aside; the sense required is that given by the VSS abide in (mg.), which may imply a different text. The clause for that he also is flesh yields no satisfying sense any more than the alternative in their going astray they are flesh (mg.). The simplest solution is to suppose that basar, the word for flesh, was written twice over (dittography), and that our present text has arisen from this.
Gen 6:4. and also after that: apparently a gloss inserted by a reader who, remembering Num 13:33, points out that they were in the earth not only in those days but also after that.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
MAN’S DEGRADATION TO CORRUPTION AND VIOLENCE
It was not long before mankind multiplied greatly on earth, and the dreadful effects of sin multiplied with them. this is emphasized in the corrupt mixture of “the sons of God” with “the daughters of men.” We have seen in Chapter 5 that the line of Seth maintained “the likeness of God” in some measure at least, therefore they are called “the sons of God:” they were separate from the evils of the line of Cain. so today in the coming out from among the ungodly and being separate, believers take a place where God says of them, “ye shall be my sons and daughters” (2Co 6:17-18).
Sadly, those of the line of Seth were seduced by the attractiveness of the women of Cain’s line, and took wives just as they chose. It is the same today if a believer marries an unbeliever: there will be sad results, for God has plainly forbidden it.
Some have supposed that “the sons of God” were fallen angels, connecting this with Job 1:6 where angels are clearly spoken of as “sons of God.” But men are more often in scripture called “sons of God” than angels are. Besides, angels are sexless (Mat 22:30), and they do not have bodies: they are spirits (Heb 1:14) It is unthinkable that God would create special bodies for fallen angels in order that they might take ungodly advantage of women.
But this matter is plainly settle by God’s word in verse 3: “The Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.” It is clear that “the sons of God” were the responsible parties here: it was they who took wives, not the wives who took them. So God calls the sons of God men, insisting also that they are “flesh,” not spirit, as angels are. So early in history this event stands as a solemn warning to believers against yoking themselves with unbelievers. Such mixtures are often strongly censured in the Old Testament as well as in the New. Compare Ezr 9:1-4 and 2Co 6:14-18.
God had by His Spirit been striving with men against their willful sin, but His patience would come to an end, though He would evidently allow them another 120 years before He would destroy civilization. Chapter 5:32 speaks of Noah being 500 years old, so that it seems that God spoke as He did in verse 3 twenty years before Noah became 500. Before the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives, there were giants in the earth. There is no indication as to why men became giants (v.4), but generally in scripture giants are connected with unbelief. The spiritual lesson from this is that unbelievers aspire to be great and outstanding, but a giant is an abnormal monstrosity.
After that we read of the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, becoming “mighty men, — men of renown.” Notice, they are still “men,” not angels. If a believer marries an unbeliever, the believer is responsible for the wrong, not the unbeliever. But the believer is thus using his many privileges and advantages in an unfaithful way. The unbelieving partner gets the advantage of these without being born again, and the result is that their children become prominent and influential in the world. In fact, a believer himself, if he uses his Christian capabilities for the world, may become great in the world, but is not true to his Lord. Thus, this mixture benefits the world in a material way, but the Lord is robbed of the honor that belongs to Him.
This is great wickedness in the eyes of the Lord, for it is the basis of every other kind of evil. People want what they want now: they see opportunities for material prosperity and God is calmly ignored. “Every intent” of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. The line of Seth had become just as independent and callous as the line of Cain. Seth himself was no doubt a believer, but by this time his seed had become faithless.
Certainly God knew from eternity past that man would so greatly corrupt himself, yet we are told in verse 6 that He repented that He had made man on the earth. This surely indicates the depth of sorrow that God feels in contemplating the sin of mankind. On the one hand God’s great wisdom and power is seen in His creation and also in His marvelous work of recovery after man’s ruin; but on the other hand we see the reality of the feelings of His heart in reference to His creatures willingly choosing to rebel against Him. Though God is absolutely sovereign, yet man is seriously responsible and must be made to feel the results of his willful sin. Thus, God decreed that He would “blot out man — from the face of the land.” Yet animals, creeping things and birds are included in this awesome destruction, for man’s sin has involved the rest of the earthly creation. People may say that when they sin it is only themselves they have damaged, but man’s sin always affects others too, even unreasoning creatures.
HOPE FOUND IN ONE MAN
One man alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord (v.8). Noah was righteous as regards his human relationships and blameless in his personal character, because “he walked with God.” When the population of the earth had increased so tremendously, it is tragically sad to consider that only one man walked with God. In this he is typical of the Lord Jesus. Yet he does illustrate the fact that it is possible for a believer to walk in true, godly separation from an evil world, even when he has no fellowship of others in so doing. Sometimes a believer may find himself in such circumstances, though this is exceptional, for 2Ti 2:22 tells us, “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” But in any case, a lonely path with God is infinitely better than having many friends without God’s presence.
Noah’s three sons are again mentioned in verse 10, though evidently born after he was 500 years of age (ch.5:32). The most serious evil of man is then emphasized — his corruption before God — which led to an earth filled with violence (v.11). Violence is of course against others, and people consider this the worst thing; but their corruption is against God, though they think lightly of it. If there were no corruption there would be no violence. But at this time “all flesh” had corrupted itself. God tells Noah that the end of all flesh was imminent because the earth was filled with violence, for violence was the glaring proof of man’s corruption (v.13). God would destroy the inhabitants with the earth.
Yet a refuge was to be provided by the grace of God for those who realized their need of His grace. God instructed Noah to make a large ark of gopher wood, six times as long as it was wide, and with three decks, built with rooms, not only for people, but for animals also, covered with pitch inside and out (v.14). One door is mentioned, which may seem inadequate for so large a ship, but it is typical of the fact that Christ alone is the door of salvation for mankind. It may be that the window “finished — to a cubit from the top” was an opening that encircled the whole ark, thus giving full ventilation, but capable of being closed. Of course there may have been other ventilation also, for we are not told the full details of the construction of this great vessel.
God gave warning of the flood well in advance, and there was no doubt of its coming. All animate life on earth would be destroyed (v.17). Similarly, God has given advance warning that He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world by that Man whom He has ordained, the Lord Jesus Christ (Act 17:31). Men may mock at this, but it will come just as surely as the flood came. It is not simply that God allowed it to come, but He insists, “I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth.”
However, if judgment was ordained by God, salvation was just as absolutely ordained. God established a covenant with Noah to this effect, to preserve him and his family by means of the ark, the only exception to the awesome destruction of man’s civilization. Animals were also included in this preservation, for a pair of every species was to be brought into the ark, and of birds also and creeping things. In the case of clean animals and birds we shall learn in Chapter 7:2-3 that this was expanded to seven of each.
As to food, Noah was to bring in some of all kinds A variety is of real value for the health of mankind. Noah was not to be a food faddist, demanding one kind of food and rejecting all others. God had made all. Of course if one is allergic to a certain food. It is only sensible to avoid this. The supply would have to be very large for the great number of animals as well as eight people. Though it is possible that God would cause many of the animals to lapse into a state of hibernation during the 10 months in the ark. We may be sure that Noah was not ignorant of methods of food preservation, but nothing is said of this. The important matter is that he did as God told him (v.22).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
2. God’s sorrow over man’s wickedness 6:1-8
As wickedness increased on the earth God determined to destroy the human race with the exception of those few people to whom He extended grace.
"Stories of a great flood sent in primeval times by gods to destroy mankind followed by some form of new creation are so common to so many peoples in different parts of the world, between whom no kind of historical contact seems possible, that the notion seems almost to be a universal feature of the human imagination." [Note: Whybray, p. 45.]
There were two major reasons for the flood: the sins of the sons of God (Gen 6:1-4) and the sins of humankind generally (Gen 6:5-8).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The sins of the sons of God 6:1-4
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
There are three major views about the identity of the sons of God.
1. They were fallen angels who married women. [Note: The Book of Enoch (a second century B.C. pseudepigrapha); Philo; Josephus; Justin Martyr; Tertullian; Cyprian; Ambrose; Pember; Clarence Larkin The Spirit World; Henry Morris, The Genesis Record; C. Fred Dickason, Angels: Elect and Evil; M. R. DeHaan, 508 Answers to Bible Questions; Boice, 1:245-48; R. S. Hendel, "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men," Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37; Merrill, p. 23; Wenham, pp. 140, 146; et al.] Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.
a. The term "sons of God" as it occurs here in Hebrew refers only to angels in the Old Testament (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; et al.). Response: Angels do not reproduce (Mat 22:30).
b. 2Pe 2:4-5 and Jud 1:6-7 appear to identify angels with this incident. Response: There are no other references to angels in the context here in Genesis. These New Testament passages probably refer to the fall of Satan.
c. If God could impregnate Mary, spirit beings may be able to do the same thing to human women. Response: Spirit beings cannot do everything that God can do.
2. They were godly Sethites who married ungodly women. I prefer this view. Arguments in favor of this view follow with responses.
a. The Old Testament often refers to the godly as God’s sons (e.g., Exo 4:22). Response: This would have to be an exception to the technical use of "sons of God" as a reference to angels in the Old Testament.
b. Moses had already established the concept of a godly line in Genesis (Gen 4:26).
c. Sonship based on election is common in the Old Testament.
d. Warnings against marriages between believers and unbelievers are common in the Pentateuch.
3. They were dynastic rulers who married women. [Note: Merediith G. Klein, "Diivine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4," Westminster Theological Journal 24 (1962):187-204; John Skinner, Genesis; Kitchen, "The Old . . .," p. 4; et al. See also Watson E. Mills, "Sons of God: The Roman View," Biblical Illustrator (Fall 1983):37-39.] Fallen angels (demons) may have indwelt or at least controlled them. [Note: Ross, "Genesis," p. 36; Waltke, Genesis, pp. 116-17.] Arguments in favor of this view and responses follow.
a. Ancient Near Eastern literature often called kings sons of gods.
b. The Old Testament refers to administrators (e.g., judges) as gods. Response: Scripture never regards them as descendants of deities, as pagan ancient Near Eastern literature does.
c. This story is similar to Babylonian antediluvian stories.
Scholars have debated this passage heatedly, but there is not yet decisive evidence that enables us to make a dogmatic decision as to the correct interpretation. One writer expressed his frustration as follows.
"What does he [Moses] mean? I do not know, and I do not believe anyone knows. So far as I am concerned, this passage is unintelligible." [Note: Albertus Pieters, Notes on Genesis, p. 116.]
Context is very important in any interpretive problem, and I believe it argues for view 2 in this case. [Note: See Keil and Delitzsch, 1:131-34. Many conservative interpreters hold this view. See Wolf, p. 99.] If so, the purpose of this segment appears to be to document the degradation of even the godly, thus justifying the flood.
Some people who believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture have emphasized this passage. I do not believe that the angelic conflict is a major theme of Scripture. I believe the angels are important primarily because of their function as God’s messengers sent forth to minister to people (Heb 1:14).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE FLOOD
Gen 5:1-32; Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 8:1-22; Gen 9:1-29
THE first great event which indelibly impressed itself on the memory of the primeval world was the Flood. There is every reason to believe that this catastrophe was co-extensive with the human population of the world. In every branch of the human family traditions of the event are found. These traditions need not be recited, though some of them bear a remarkable likeness to the Biblical story, while others are very beautiful in their construction, and significant in individual points. Local floods happening at various times in different countries could not have given birth to the minute coincidences found in these traditions, such as the sending out of the birds, and the number of persons saved. But we have as yet no material for calculating how far human population had spread from the Original centre. It might apparently be argued that it could not have spread to the seacoast, or that at any rate no ships had as yet been built large enough to weather a severe storm; for a thoroughly nautical population could have had little difficulty in surviving such a catastrophe as is here described. But all that can be affirmed is that there is no evidence that the waters extended beyond the inhabited part of the earth; and from certain details of the narrative, this part of the earth may be identified as the great plain of the Euphrates and Tigris.
Some of the expressions used in the narrative might indeed lead us to suppose that the writer understood the catastrophe to have extended over the whole globe; but expressions of similar largeness elsewhere occur in passages where their meaning must be restricted: Probably the most convincing evidence of the limited extent of the Flood is furnished by the animals of Australia. The animals that abound in that island are different from those found in other parts of the world, but are similar to the species which are found fossilised in the island itself, and which therefore must have inhabited these same regions long anterior to the Flood. If then the Flood extended to Australia and destroyed all animal life there, what are we compelled to suppose as the order of events? We must suppose that the creatures, visited by some presentiment of what was to happen many months after, selected specimens of their number, and that these specimens by some unknown and quite inconceivable means crossed thousands of miles of sea, found their way through all kinds of perils from unaccustomed climate, food, and beasts of prey; singled out Noah by some inscrutable instinct, and surrendered themselves to his keeping. And after the year in the ark expired, they turned their faces homewards, leaving behind them no progeny, again preserving themselves intact, and transporting themselves by some unknown means to their island home. This, if the Deluge was universal, must have been going on with thousands of animals from all parts of the globe; and not only were these animals a stupendous miracle in themselves, but wherever they went they were the occasion of miracle in others, all the beasts of prey refraining from their natural food. The fact is, the thing will not bear stating.
But it is not the physical but the moral aspects of the Flood with which we have here to do. And, first, this narrator explains its cause. He ascribes it to the abnormal wickedness of the antediluvians. To describe the demoralised condition of society before the Flood, the strongest language is used. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great,” monstrous in acts of violence, and in habitual courses and established usages. “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,”-there was no mixture of good, no relentings, no repentances, no visitings of compunction, no hesitations and debatings. It was a world of men fierce and energetic, violent and lawless, in perpetual war and turmoil; in which if a man sought to live a righteous life, he had to conceive it of his own mind and to follow it out unaided and without the countenance of any.
This abnormal wickedness again is accounted for by the abnormal marriages from which the leaders of these ages sprang. Everything seemed abnormal, huge, inhuman. As there are laid bare to the eye of the geologist in those archaic times vast forms bearing a likeness to forms we are now familiar with, but of gigantic proportions and wallowing in dim, mist-covered regions; so to the eye of the historian there loom through the obscurity colossal forms perpetrating deeds of more than human savagery, and strength, and daring; heroes that seem formed in a different mould from common men.
However we interpret the narrative, its significance for us is plain. There is nothing prudish in the Bible. It speaks with a manly frankness of the beauty of women and its ensnaring power. The Mosaic law was stringent against intermarriage with idolatresses, and still in the New Testament something more than an echo of the old denunciation of such marriages is heard. Those who were most concerned about preserving a pure morality and a high tone in society were keenly alive to the dangers that threatened from this quarter. It is a permanent danger to character because it is to a permanent element in human nature that the temptation appeals. To many in every generation, perhaps to the majority, this is the most dangerous form in which worldliness presents itself; and to resist this the most painful test of principle. With natures keenly sensitive to beauty and superficial attractiveness, some are called upon to make their choice between a conscientious cleaving to God and an attachment to that which in the form is perfect but at heart is defective, depraved, godless. Where there is great outward attraction a man fights against the growing sense of inward uncongeniality, and persuades himself he is too scrupulous and uncharitable, or that he is a bad reader of character. There may be an undercurrent of warning; he may be sensible that his whole nature is not satisfied, and it may seem to him ominous that what is best within him does not flourish in his new attachment, but rather what is inferior, if not what is worst. But all such omens and warnings are disregarded and stifled by some such silly thought as that consideration and calculation are out of place in such matters. And what is the result? The result is the same as it ever was. Instead of the ungodly rising to the level of the godly, he sinks to hers. The worldly style, the amusements, the fashions once distasteful to him, but allowed for her sake, become familiar, and at last wholly displace the old and godly ways, the arrangements that left room for acknowledging God in the family; and there is one household less as a point of resistance to the incursion of an ungodly tone in society, one deserter more added to the already too crowded ranks of the ungodly, and the life-time if not the eternity of one soul embittered. Not without a consideration of the temptations that do actually lead men astray did the law enjoin: “Thou shalt not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, nor take of their daughters unto thy sons.”
It seems like a truism to say that a greater amount of unhappiness has been produced by mismanagement, folly, and wickedness in the relation subsisting between men and women than by any other cause. God has given us the capacity of love to regulate this relation and be our safe guide in all matters connected with it. But frequently, from one cause or another, the government and direction of this relation are taken out of the hands of love and put into the thoroughly incompetent hands of convenience, or fancy, or selfish lust. A marriage contracted from any such motive is sure to bring unhappiness of a long-continued, wearing, and often heartbreaking kind. Such a marriage is often the form in which retribution comes for youthful selfishness and youthful licentiousness. You cannot cheat nature. Just in so far as you allow yourself to be ruled in youth by a selfish love of pleasure, in so far do you incapacitate yourself for love. You sacrifice what is genuine and satisfying, because provided by nature, to what is spurious, unsatisfying, and shameful. You cannot afterwards, unless by a long and bitter discipline, restore the capacity of warm and pure love in your heart. Every indulgence in which true love is absent is another blow given to the faculty of love within you-you make yourself in that capacity decrepit, paralyzed, dead. You have lost, you have killed the faculty that should be your guide in all these matters, and so you are at last precipitated without this guidance into a marriage formed from some other motive, formed therefore against nature, and in which you are the everlasting victim of natures relentless justice. Remember that you cannot have both things, a youth of loveless pleasure and a loving marriage-you must make your choice. For as surely as genuine love kills all evil desire; so surely does evil desire kill the very capacity of love, and blind utterly its wretched victim to the qualities that ought to excite love.
The language used of God in relation to this universal corruption strikes every one as remarkable. “It repented the Lord that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.” This is what is usually termed anthropomorphism, i.e., the presenting of God in terms applicable only to man; it is an instance of the same mode of speaking as is used when we speak of Gods hand or eye or heart. These expressions are not absolutely true, but they are useful and convey to us a meaning which could scarcely otherwise be expressed. Some persons think that the use of these expressions proves that in early times God was thought of as wearing a body and as being very like ourselves in His inward nature. And even in our day we have been ridiculed for speaking of God as a magnified man. Now in the first place the use of such expressions does not prove that even the earliest worshippers of God believed Him to have eyes and hands and a body. We freely use the same expressions though we have no such belief. We use them because our language is formed for human uses and on a human level, and we have no capacity to frame a better. And in the second place, though not absolutely true they do help us towards the truth. We are told that it degrades God to think of Him as hearing prayer and accepting praise; nay, that to think Of Him as a Person at all, is to degrade Him. We ought to think of Him as the Absolutely Unknowable. But which degrades God most, and which exalts Him most? If we find that it is impossible to worship an absolutely unknowable, if we find that practically such an idea is a mere nonentity to us, and that we cannot in point of fact pay any homage or show any consideration to such an empty abstraction, is not this really to lower God? And if we find that when we think of Him as a Person, and ascribe to Him all human virtue in an infinite degree, we can rejoice in Him and worship Him with true adoration, is not this to exalt Him? While we call Him our Father we know that this title is inadequate; while we speak of God as planning and decreeing we know that we are merely making shift to express what is inexpressible by us-we know that our thoughts of Him are never adequate and that to think of Him at all is to lower Him, is to think of Him inadequately; but when the practical alternative is such as it is, we find we do well to think of Him with the highest personal attributes we can conceive. For to refuse to ascribe such attributes to Him because this is degrading Him, is to empty our minds of any idea of Him which can stimulate either to worship or to duty. If by ridding our minds of all anthropomorphic ideas and refusing to think of God as feeling, thinking, acting as men do, we could thereby get to a really higher conception of Him, a conception which would practically make us worship Him more devotedly and serve Him more faithfully, then by all means let us do so. But if the result of refusing to think of Him as in many ways like ourselves, is that we cease to think of Him at all or only as a dead impersonal force, then this certainly is not to reach a higher but a lower conception of Him. And until we see our way to some truly higher conception than that which we have of a Personal God, we had better be content with it.
In short, we do well to be humble, and considering that we know very little about existence of any kind, and least of all about Gods, and that our God has been presented to us in human form, we do well to accept Christ as our God, to worship, love, and serve Him, finding Him sufficient for all our wants of this life, and leaving it to other times to get the solution of anything that is not made plain to us in Him. This is one boon that the science and philosophy of our day have unintentionally conferred upon us. They have laboured to make us feel how remote and inaccessible God is, how little we can know Him, how truly He is past finding out; they have laboured to make us feel how intangible and invisible and incomprehensible God is, but the result of this is that we turn with all the stronger longing to Him who is the Image of the Invisible God, and on whom a voice has fallen from the excellent glory, “This is My beloved Son, hear Him.”
The Flood itself we need not attempt to describe. It has been remarked that though the narrative is vivid and forcible, it is entirely wanting in that sort of description which in a modern historian or poet would have occupied the largest space. “We see nothing of the death-struggle; we hear not the cry of despair; we are not called upon to witness the frantic agony of husband and wife, and parent and child, as they fled in terror before the rising waters. Nor is a word said of the sadness of the one righteous man, who, safe himself, looked upon the destruction which he could not avert.” The Chaldean tradition which is the most closely allied to the Biblical account is not so reticent. Tears are shed in heaven over the catastrophe, and even consternation affected its inhabitants, while within the ark itself the Chaldean Noah says, “When the storm came to an end and the terrible water-spout ceased, I opened the window and the light smote upon my face. I looked at the sea attentively observing, and the whole of humanity had returned to mud, like seaweed the corpses floated. I was seized with sadness; I sat down and wept and my tears fell upon my face.”
There can be little question that this is a true description of Noahs feeling. And the sense of desolation and constraint would rather increase in Noahs mind than diminish. Month after month elapsed; he was coming daily nearer the end of his food, and yet the waters were unabated. He did not know how long he was to be kept in this dark, disagreeable place. He was left to do his daily work without any supernatural signs to help him against his natural anxieties. The floating of the ark and all that went on in it had no mark of Gods hand upon it. He was indeed safe while others had been destroyed. But of what good was this safety to be? Was he ever to get out of this prison house? To what straits was he to be first reduced? So it is often with ourselves. We are left to fulfil Gods will without any sensible tokens to set over against natural difficulties, painful and pinching circumstances, ill health, low spirits, failure of favourite projects and old hopes-so that at last we come to think that perhaps safety is all we are to have in Christ, a mere exemption from suffering of one kind purchased by the endurance of much suffering of another kind: that we are to be thankful for pardon on any terms; and escaping with our life, must be content though it be bare. Why, how often does a Christian wonder whether, after all, he has chosen a life that he can endure, whether the monotony and the restraints of the Christian life are not inconsistent with true enjoyment?
This strife between the felt restriction of the Christian life and the natural craving for abundant life, for entrance into all that the world can show us, and experience of all forms of enjoyment-this strife goes on unceasingly in the heart of many of us as it goes on from age to age in the world. Which is the true view of life, which is the view to guide us in choosing and refusing the enjoyments and pursuits that are presented to us? Are we to believe that the ideal man for this life is he who has tasted all culture and delight, who believes in nature, recognising no fall and seeking for no redemption, and makes enjoyment his end; or he who sees that all enjoyment is deceptive till man is set right morally, and who spends himself on this, knowing that blood and misery must come before peace and rest, and crowned as our King and Leader, not with a garland of roses, but with the crown of Him Who is greatest of all, because servant of all-to Whom the most sunken is not repulsive, and Who will not abandon the most hopeless? This comes to be very much the question, whether this life is final or preparatory?-whether, therefore, our work in it should be to check lower propensities and develop and train all that is best in character, so as to be fit for highest life and enjoyment in a world to come-or should take ourselves as we find ourselves, and delight in this present world? whether this is a placid eternal state, in which things are very much as they should be, and in which therefore we can live freely and enjoy freely; or whether it is a disordered, initial condition in which our main task should be to do a little towards putting things on a better rail and getting at least the germ and small beginnings of future good planted in one another? So that in the midst of all felt restriction, there is the highest hope, that one day we shall go forth from the narrow precincts of our ark, and step out into the free bright sunshine, in a world where there is nothing to offend, and that the time of our deprivation will seem to have been well spent indeed, if it has left within us a capacity permanently to enjoy love, holiness, justice, and all that is delighted in by God Himself.
The use made of this event in the New Testament is remarkable. It is compared by Peter to baptism, and both are viewed as illustrations of salvation by destruction. The eight souls, he says, who were in the ark, “were saved by water.” The water which destroyed the rest saved them. When there seemed little hope of the godly line being able to withstand the influence of the ungodly, the Flood came and left Noahs family in a new world, with freedom to order all things according to their own ideas. In this Peter sees some analogy to baptism. In baptism, the penitent who believes in the efficacy of Christs blood to purge away sin, lets his defilement be washed away and rises new and clean to the life Christ gives. In Christ the sinner finds shelter for himself and destruction for his sins. It is Gods wrath against sin that saves us by destroying our sins; just as it was the Flood which devastated the world, that at the same time, and thereby, saved Noah and his family.
In this event, too, we see the completeness of Gods work. Often we feel reluctant to surrender our sinful habits to so final a destruction as is implied in being one with Christ. The expense at which holiness is to be bought seems almost too great. So much that has given us pleasure must be parted with; so many old ties sundered, a condition of holiness presents an aspect of dreariness and hopelessness; like the world after the flood, not a moving thing on the surface of the earth, everything levelled, prostrate, and washed even with the ground; here the corpse of a man, there the carcase of a beast: here mighty forest timber swept prone like the rushes on the banks of a flooded stream, and there a city without inhabitants, everything dank, dismal, and repellent. But this is only one aspect of the work; the beginning, necessary if the work is to be thorough. If any part of the sinful life remain it will spring up to mar what God means to introduce us to. Only that is to be preserved which we can take with us into our ark. Only that is to pass on into our life which we can retain while we are in true connection with Christ, and which we think can help us to live as His friends, and to serve Him zealously.
This event then gives us some measure by which we can know how much God will do to maintain holiness upon earth. In this catastrophe every one who strives after godliness may find encouragement, seeing in it the Divine earnestness of God-for good and against evil. There is only one other event in history that so conspicuously shows that holiness among men is the object for which God will sacrifice everything else. There is no need now of any further demonstration of Gods purpose in this world. and His zeal for carrying it out. And may it not be expected of us His children, that we stand in presence of the cross until our cold and frivolous hearts catch something of the earnestness, the “resisting unto blood striving against sin,” which is exhibited there? The Flood has not been forgotten by almost any people under heaven, but its moral result is nil. But he whose memory is haunted by a dying Redeemer, by the thought of One Whose love found its most appropriate and practical result in dying for him, is prevented from much sin, and finds in that love the spring of eternal hope, that which his soul in the deep privacy of his most sacred thoughts can feed upon with joy, that which he builds himself round and broods over as his inalienable possession.