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.
7. destroy ] R.V. marg. Heb. blot out. LXX , Lat. delebo. A characteristic word in J, cf. Gen 7:4; Gen 7:23; and different from the word for “destroy” in Gen 6:13. (LXX , Lat. disperdam.)
both man, and beast, &c.] No reference is here made to any preservation of life.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Both man and beast; for as the beasts were made for mans use and service, so they are destroyed for mans punishment, and to discover the malignity of sin, and Gods deep abhorrency thereof, by destroying those innocent creatures that had been made instrumental to it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And the Lord said,…. Not to the angels, nor to Noah, but within himself, on observing to what a height the sin of man had got, and what a spread it made on the earth:
I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; though he is my creature, the work of my hands, I have made him out of the earth, and made him lord of it; I am now determined to show my detestation of his wickedness, and for the honour of my justice to destroy him from off it; just as a potter takes a vessel he dislikes, when he has made it, and dashes it to pieces: or “I will wipe men off of the earth” s; like so much dust; man was made of the dust of the earth, he is dust, yea, sinful dust and ashes; and God resolved to send a flood of waters on the earth, which should wash off man from it, like so much dust upon it, just as dust is carried off by a flood of water, see 2Ki 21:13 or “I will blot out man” t, as most render the words; that is, out of the book of the living, he shall no longer live upon the earth; out of the book of creation, or of the creatures, he shall have no more a being, or be seen among them, any more than what is blotted out of a book:
both man and beast; or “from man to beast” u; even every living creature upon the earth, from man to beast, one as well as another, and one for the sake of the other, the beasts for the sake of man; these were made for his use and benefit, but he sinning against God, and abusing his mercies, they are to be taken away, and destroyed for his sake, and as a punishment for his sins:
and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; not the creeping things in the great and wide sea, for the fishes died not in the deluge, but the creeping things on the earth, Ge 6:20
for it repenteth me that I have made them; man, male and female, whom he created; Adam and Eve, and their posterity, and particularly the present inhabitants of the earth: but though it may respect men principally, yet is not to be restrained to them, but takes in all the creatures before mentioned, made for the use of man; and the ends not being answered by them, God repented that he had made them, as well as man. Some think the repentance, attributed to God in this and the preceding verse, is not to be understood of him in himself, but of his Spirit in good men, particularly Noah, producing grief, sorrow, and repentance in him, who wished that man had never been, than to be so wicked as he was; but for such a sense there seems to be no manner of foundation in the text.
s “abstergam; verbum Hebraeum” “significat aqua aliquid extergere”, Pareus. t Delebo, V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, &c. u “ab homine usque ad jumentum”, Pagninus, Montanus, &c.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
7. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, etc. He again introduces God as deliberating, in order that we may the better know that the world was not destroyed without mature counsel on the part of God. For the Spirit of the Lord designed that we should be diligently admonished on this point, in order that he might cut off occasion for those impious complaints, into which we should be otherwise too ready to break forth. The word said here means decreed; because God utters no voice, without having inwardly determined what he would do. Besides, he had no need of new counsel, according to the manner of men, as if he were forming a judgment concerning something recently discovered. But all this is said in consideration of our infirmity; that we may cleverly think of the deluge, but it shall immediately occur to us that the vengeance of God was just. Moreover, God, not content with the punishment of man, proceeds even to beasts, and cattle, and fowls and every kind of living creatures. In which he seems to exceed the bounds of moderation: for although the impiety of men is hateful to him, yet to what purpose is it to be angry with unoffending animals? But it is not wonderful that those animals, which were created for man’s sake, and lived for his use, should participate in his ruin: neither asses, nor oxen, nor any other animals, had done evil; yet being in subjection to man when he fell, they were drawn with him into the same destruction. The earth was like a wealthy house, well supplied with every kind of provision in abundance and variety. Now, since man has defiled the earth itself with his crimes, and has vilely corrupted all the riches with which it was replenished, the Lord also designed that the monument of his punishment should there be placed: just as if a judge, about to punish a most wicked and nefarious criminal, should, for the sake of greater infamy, command his house to be razed to the foundation. And this all tends to inspire us with a dread of sin; for we may easily infer how great is its atrocity, when the punishment of it is extended even to the brute creation.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) I will destroy.Heb., delete, rub out.
From the face of the earth.Heb., the admh, the tilled ground which man had subdued and cultivated.
Both man, and beast.Heb., from man unto cattle, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the air, The animal world was to share in this destruction, because its fate is bound up with that of man (Rom. 8:19-22); but the idea of the total destruction of all animals by the flood, so far from being contained in the text, is contradicted by it, as it only says that it is to reach to them. Wild beasts are not mentioned in this enumeration, probably because the domestic cattle would be the chief sufferers.
Creeping thing.Not necessarily reptiles. (See Note on Gen. 1:24.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. I will destroy Literally, I will wipe out man . When God destroys his own creature, the creature must have made itself fearfully guilty and corrupt .
Both man, and beast Heb, from man unto beast; that is, beginning at man, the destruction shall descend to beasts, man’s subjects and servants . It is one of the deep mysteries of this life that the lower orders of animate beings rejoice and suffer in sympathy with man, and are, therefore, involved in the calamities which result from human sin. But they are also a part of the whole creation, ( ,) which groans and travails together with sinning and suffering man, waiting “for the manifestation of the sons of God . ” Rom 8:19-21. What and how much the apostle means by these wondrous words we cannot conceive, but it is something ineffably glorious .
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘So Yahweh said, “I will blot out these men (or mankind) whom I have created from the face of the ground, men (mankind) and beasts and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them”.’
So God determines to blot out all who have been infected by this evil.
The question that arises, however, is as to who is involved. Is it the whole of mankind? Or is it the people who are living in the area where Noah lives, the people ‘in his world’. If we see this as happening in the very distant past before men had spread widely we may argue that it means all mankind. But the Hebrew does not require this because of the number of nuances of the word eretz.
The word translated ‘earth’ (eretz) in Gen 6:5-7 even more often means ‘land’ and it is quite in accordance with the Hebrew that this situation described occurred in just one part of the earth, ‘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. To them there was their own world (their ‘eretz’ – compare Gen 12:1), then a wider ‘eretz’ which included the surrounding peoples, and then the rather hazy world on the fringes, and then beyond that who knew what? Thus ‘the earth’ even in its wider meaning could mean a fairly large, and yet from our viewpoint localised, area, and their ‘whole earth’ was what to us would be to fairly limited horizons (compare 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)).
There are thus three possibilities, all possible from the Hebrew.
1). That all mankind is involved and that the flood was global. (It could not strictly mean this to the writer, or to Noah, for both were unaware of such an idea. All they could think of, and mean, was ‘the world’ according to their conception of it).
2). That all mankind was involved but that they had not moved out of a certain large area and therefore were all destroyed in a huge flood, which was not, however, necessarily 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, as would the argument that had the area been limited Noah could have moved with his family outside the area, however large. (Against this it could be argued that God had a lesson to teach to future generations, and that He had in view the preservation of animal life).
3). That it was only mankind in the large area affected by the demonic activity (‘Noah’s world’) that were to be destroyed, and that the flood was therefore vast, but not destroying those of mankind unaffected by the situation described, if there were such.
What cannot be avoided is the fact 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, as for example in the Sumerian king lists, see article on ” “.
The term ‘the face of the ground’ (compareGen 2:6; Gen 4:14; Gen 6:1; Gen 7:23; Gen 8:8; Gen 8:13), used here and never outside Genesis 1-11, may have a specialist meaning, for Cain was driven ‘from the face of the ground’ while he was hardly driven from the earth. It could therefore perhaps refer to that area of land ‘given’ to Adam when they were driven from the Garden (thus Mesopotamia and its surrounds), or possibly to ground as a whole wherever men cultivate it (thus to all integrated mankind). Now He will not just drive men out of it as He did Cain, He will blot them out.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gen 6:7. I will destroy both man and beast, &c. God made the beasts for the service and delight of man; they therefore must perish with him, as with him they became subject to vanity and abuse. And God might certainly destroy them thus with as much justice as by a natural death; it is only a recalling that temporary breath which God himself had given them. And as the recalling it at that time, served to render this example of the Divine severity against sin the more signal and tremendous to future ages, we may venture to affirm, it answered the purposes of God’s moral government, even better than if he had saved them by miracle from the common wreck. And, considered in that light, it is so far from being an imputation upon his justice, that it is rather an act of mercy; for whatever tends to reclaim inconsiderate mortals from their infatuation in counteracting the laws, which infinite Wisdom has devised to raise them to happiness, is an act of goodness and benevolence.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Making, Destroying, and Saving Man
Gen 1:26
If you could bring together into one view all the words of God expressive of his purposes concerning man, you would be struck with the changefulness which seems to hold his mind in continual uncertainty. He will destroy, yet the blow never falls; he will listen to man no more, yet he speeds to him in the day of trouble and fear; he will make an utter end, yet he saves Noah from the flood, and plucks Lot as a brand from the fire; his arm is stretched out, yet it is withdrawn in tender pity. So changeful is he who changeth not, and so fickle he in whom there is no shadow of turning! We cannot but be interested in the study of so remarkable a fact, for surely there must be some explanation of changefulness in Omniscience and variation of feeling in the Inhabitant of eternity. You never read of God being disappointed with the sun, or grieved by the irregularity of the stars. He never darkens the morning light with a frown, nor does he ever complain of any other of the work of his hands than man, made in his own image and likeness! he does indeed say that he will destroy “both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air,” but it is wholly on account of man’s sin; for, as everything was made for man, so when man falls all that was made for him and centred in him goes down in the great collapse. Why should there be blithe bird-music in the house of death? Why should the earth grow flowers when the chief beauty has lost its bloom? So all must die in man. When he falls he shakes down the house that was built for him. So we come again to the solemn but tender mystery of God’s changefulness, and ask in wonder, yet in hope, whether there can be found any point at which are reconciled the Changeable and the Everlasting?
But let us be sure that we are not mistaken in the terms of the case. Is it true that there is any change in God? is not the apparent change in him the reflection of the real change that is in ourselves? I not only undertake to affirm that such is the case, but I go farther, and affirm that the very everlastingness of the Divine nature compels exactly such changes as are recorded in the Bible. If you say that man ought not to have been created as a changeable being, then you say in other words that man ought not to have been created at all. If you find fault with man’s constitution, you find fault with God, and if you find fault with God I have no argument with you. I take man as he is, and I want to show that Divine love must manifest itself, either in complacency or anger, according to the conduct of mankind.
I must remind you that this principle is already in operation in those institutions which we value most, and that it is a principle on which we rely for the good order, the permanent security, and the progress of society.
This principle is in constant operation in family life. By the gracious necessities of nature the child is tenderly beloved. The whole household is made to give way to the child’s weakness. The parents live their lives over again in the life of the child. For his sake hardship is undergone and difficulty is overcome. The tenderest care is not too dainty, the most persistent patience is not accounted a weariness. But sin comes: ingratitude, rebellion, defiance; family order is trampled on, family peace is violated; and in proportion as the parent is just, honourable, true, and loving, will he be grieved with great grief; he will not be petulant, irritable, or spiteful, but a solemn and bitter grief will weigh down his desolated heart. Then he may mourn the child’s birth, and say, with breaking and most tearful voice, “It had been better that the child had not been born.” Then still higher aggravation comes. Something is done which must be visited with anger, or the parent must lose all regard for truth and for the child himself. Now, all punishment for wrong-doing is a point on the line which terminates in death. Consider that well, if you please. It may, indeed, be so accepted as to lead to reformation and better life; but that does not alter the nature of punishment itself. Punishment simply and strictly as punishment is the beginning of death. Have you, then, changed in your parental love because you have punished your child? Certainly not. The change is not in you; it is in the child. If you had forborne to punish, then you would have lost your own moral vitality, and would have become a partaker in the very sin which you affected to deplore. If you are right-minded, you will feel that destruction is better than sinfulness; that sinfulness, as such, demands destruction; and if you knew the full scope of your own act you would know that the very first stripe given for sin is the beginning of death. But I remember the time when you caressed that child and fondled it as if it was your better life, you petted the child, you laid it on the softest down, you sang it your sweetest lullabies, you lived in its smiles; and now I see you, rod in hand, standing over the child in anger! Have you changed? Are you fickle, pitiless, tyrannical? You know you are not. It is love that expostulates; it is love that strikes. If that child were to blame you for your changefulness you would know what reply to make. Your answer would be strong in self-defence, because strong in justice and honour.
We have exactly the same thing in the larger family called Society. When a man is punished by society, it is not a proof that society is fickle in temper; it is rather a proof that society is so far conservative, and even everlasting in its substance, as to demand the punishment of every offender. Society is formed to protect and consolidate all that is good and useful in its own multitudinous elements, yet society will not hesitate to slay a man with the public sword, if marks of human blood are upon his hands. Is, then, society vengeful, malignant, or uneven in temper? On the contrary, it is the underlying Everlasting which necessitates all those outward and temporary changes which are so often mistaken as signs of fickleness and uncertainty. What the Everlasting cannot tolerate is dishonour, tyranny, wrong, or impureness in any degree. Society offers rewards today and deals out punishments tomorrow. At noon, society may crown you as a benefactor; at midnight, society may drag you forth as a felon: the same society not fickle or coy, but self-protecting and eternal in righteousness.
These side-lights may at least mitigate the gloom of the mystery with which we started. I want to make you feel that God’s changefulness, so called, is not arbitrary, but moral; that is to say, he does not change merely for the sake of changing, but for reasons which arise out of that very Everlastingness which seems to be impaired! Not to be angry with sin is to connive at it; to connive at sin is sinful; to be sinful is to be no longer Divine. When God is angry it is a moral fire that is burning in him; it is love in a glow of justice; it is his protest on behalf of those who may yet be saved from sin.
See how it is God himself that saves man! We trembled when he said he would destroy man, for we knew he had the power; and now that he says he will save man we know that his power of offering terms of salvation is none the less. If man can be saved, God will save him; but it is for the man himself to say whether he will be saved. “If any man open the door, I will come in to him.” “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” This is the voice that said, “I will destroy,” and the two tones are morally harmonious. Looking at the sin, God must destroy; looking at any possibility of recovery, God must save. “A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench.” Christ lives to save. He would no longer be Christ if human salvation were not his uppermost thought. His soul is in travail; he yearns over us with pity more than all human pitifulness; he draws near unto our cities and weeps over them. But he can slay! He can smite with his strong arm! His hand can lay hold on justice, and then solemn is the bitter end! O, my soul, make thy peace with God through Christ. It is his love that burns into wrath. He does not want to slay thee; he pities thee; he loves thee; his soul goes out after thee in great desires of love; but if thou wilt not come to his Cross, his arm will be heavy upon thee!
How true, then, is it that there is an important sense in which God is to us exactly what we are to him! “If any man love me, I will manifest myself to him.” That is the great law of manifestation. Have I a clear vision of God? Then am I looking steadily at him with a heart that longs to be pure. Can I not see him? Then some secret sin may be holding a veil before my eyes. I have changed, not God. When I seek him he will be found of me; but if I desire him not he will be a God afar off!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Gen 6:7 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.
Ver. 7. I will destroy man. ] See here the venemous and mischievous nature of sin. It causeth God to make a world, and again to unmake it: it sets him against man his masterpiece, and makes him, though he be , not only to devise, but to delight in the destruction of his own creature, to “mock at,” and make merry in his “calamity,” Pro 1:26 to deliver “the beloved of his soul into the hands of the destroyer”. Jer 12:7 Time was, when Christ, being by at the creation, “rejoiced in this habitable part of God’s earth, and his delights were with the sons of men”. Pro 8:31 But since the fall, it is far otherwise; for he is “of more pure eyes than to behold sin” Hab 1:13 with patience. He hates it worse than he hates the devil: for he hates the devil for sin’s sake, and not sin for the devil’s sake. Now the natural and next effect of hatred is revenge. Hence he resolves, “I will destroy man.”
Both man and beast, the creeping thing, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
destroy = wipe off, blot out.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
I will: Psa 24:1, Psa 24:2, Psa 37:20, Pro 10:27, Pro 16:4
both man, and beast: Heb. from man unto beast, Jer 4:22-27, Jer 12:3, Jer 12:4, Hos 4:3, Zep 1:3, Rom 3:20-22
Reciprocal: Gen 6:17 – shall die Gen 7:4 – destroy Gen 7:21 – General Job 10:8 – yet thou Psa 33:6 – By the Psa 90:3 – Thou Isa 27:11 – therefore Jer 21:6 – I will Jer 45:4 – that which Jer 50:3 – both Eze 14:13 – and will cut Eze 25:13 – and will Eze 29:8 – cut Amo 9:8 – and I Rom 3:12 – become
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 6:7. I will destroy man The original word is very significant, I will wipe off man; from off the earth As dirt is wiped off from a place which should be clean, and thrown to the dunghill. Or, I will blot out man from the earth, as those lines are blotted out of a book which displease the author, or as the name of a citizen is blotted out of the rolls of the freemen when he is disfranchised. Both man and beast, the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air These were made for man, and therefore destroyed with man. It repenteth me that I have made them For the end of their creation also was frustrated: they were made that man might serve and honour God with them; and therefore were destroyed, because he had served his lusts with them, and made them subject to vanity.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and {h} beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
(h) God declares how much he detests sin, seeing the punishment of it extends to the brute beasts.