Bibliology- Chapter 6 has several interpretive challenges. The first comes in the form of discerning the phrase “sons of God” and “daughters of man” in verse 2. There are three main understandings of this phrase: Sethites, fallen angels, and royal tyrannical successors of Lamech. The Sethite view is the view held by the early church and it holds that the sons of God were from the righteous line of Seth. This would mean that over the course of time, Seth’s line started to mingle with Cain’s line, and it would be for this reason that people became unrighteous as time went on. The sin that brought on the damnation of the world, in this sense, would be the procreation between those of righteous faith, and those of the world.
The second view holds that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels who left Heaven to mingle with the daughters of man. This is the oldest interpretation and comes from rabbinical tradition. Its main support comes from 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.” It would seem that there is a circular kind of logic here, Genesis 6:2 interprets the phrase in question as angels because it is presumed that Job 1:6 interprets the phrase as angels. This isn’t necessarily the case in Job 1:6, but that would go beyond the scope necessary for an understanding of this view. Suffice it to say, if Job 1:6 is referring to angels then this would set a kind of precedent for this phrase and offer a certain amount of validity to this claim. Further credence is given to this position from verse 4 because the sons of God having children with the daughters of men would become the mighty men of old, men of renown. The biggest challenge to this interpretation is the words of Jesus in Matthew 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” That is to say, there is no procreation among the angels. It is also widely held that angels are spiritual beings, not corporeal ones. The other problem comes from a question of the judgment itself. If it was the angels who sinned, why was the world judged, and man spoken of as the reason for that judgment.
The third interpretation became popular among Jewish scholars in the second century. In this understanding, Lamech's children became tyrants and started harems. The key phrase for this interpretation is, “any they chose,” because it matches the actions of Lamech in the previous chapter. It also describes how they became giants, and men of renown. However, there is nothing Godly about Lamech or his actions. And it doesn’t seem fitting to call others who would behave in the same way as sons of God.
The next issue is a fast phrase in verse 3 where God limits the time of man to 120 years. One interpretation of this verse is that, after the flood, no man will live more than 120 years. This would cover the life span of Moses, who lived 120 years, but not Abraham who lived 175 years. Also, most people lived significantly shorter lives than this. A better explanation of this time frame is the amount of time allotted from the time God pronounced judgment to the time of the flood.
Another challenge is in the very next verse when discussing the Nephelium, or giants. There is no small dispute over who these people were. The most popular idea of these beings is that they were the offspring of angels and man from couplings happening in verse 2. This view supposes that the sons of God were angels and is entirely reliant on this being the case. There is a sense of mystery here, and it allows our imaginations to run a bit wild. However, in order for this word to be used in this way, it would seem that there are some of these beings who survived the flood and had children of their own.
Notably, the King James Version doesn’t use the Hebrew word Nephelium, but instead prefers the translated word “giants.” Perhaps even more accurately, the AFV (A Faithful Version) translates the word as "tyrant", which is the direct translation of the word נְפִיל-nephı̂yl from the Strong's concordance, H5303. The idea here is that certain men rose up as violent and evil tyrants who oppressed the people of the land. This doesn’t negate the concept that there were men of renown, but it does take away from the mysterious idea that these men were supernatural in the sense of being the children of angels.
Yet another issue with the text is the concept of the ark itself. Atheists often point to the idea that the ark wasn’t big enough to hold 2 of every type of animal in the ark, along with food and provisions. They will also ask if one 1.5 ft by 1.5 ft window on the roof of the ark is sufficient to vent the ark of all the methane gas produced by these animals. There is also a question of regional versus world wide flood which will be addressed in the next chapter.
To help us out, it’s important to understand the size of the ark, and its volume. The ark was roughly 450 ft long, 75 ft wide, and 45 ft tall. For perspective, that’s about 50’ longer than the average football field, including the end zones, as wide as 25 yards of the same football field, and roughly as tall as a 4-story building. The volume of this vessel is roughly 2.4 million cubic feet. So, how much space do we need to have for two of every kind of unclean animal, seven of every kind of clean animal, and two of every kind of bird? The average weight and size of every known land animal is about the size of a sheep. So far the data presented fairly represents both sides of the issue.
This is where one’s understanding of the text makes a difference in how one sees Noah’s ark. If we are talking about two of every type of animal, two of every type of dog, every type of cat, every type of cow, and so on, Noah’s ark would require 156 million cubic feet, and this still doesn’t cover the feed for those animals, nor the food necessary to sustain human life. However, if Noah only needed to bring two of every kind of animal, that is to say, two dogs, two cats, two big cats, and seven cows (since they are clean) then this drastically reduces the necessary volume from 156 million cubits to 1.88 million cubits, leaving roughly 250,000 cubits square for provisions.
Full disclosure, I didn’t do this math myself. I looked at different websites, both that critiqued the ark and supported it. Don’t go asking me for help with your math work. I’ll help you, but you’ll likely fail.
Given these numbers, one will naturally come to the conclusion that either the flood is mythical, the flood is real, or the flood is regional. The fact that almost every culture in the world has a similar story lends credibility to the idea that there was some sort of flood. The Epic of Gilgamesh, as a written story, predates the account in Genesis by around 700 years, and even though there are wild differences between the texts, it still accounts for some form of massive flood. China, likewise, has a flood story in which man only survived by building a massive tower that reached above the mountains. To dismiss these claims entirely erases an understanding of our history and leaves us adrift among bland evidence that tells no real story.
If one allows that there was a flood, the other must be decided if it were truly worldwide, or regional. Genesis says that God was sorry that He made man, so He will blot them from the Earth. Not just man, but also “every creeping thing, and the fouls of the air” (v 7). It stands to reason then that the Bible speaks of a worldwide flood, even if you allow that the word “earth” in v 7 refers to the known earth, or the land.
Another objection to this is simply the amount of water it would require to flood the whole earth. To this end, it should be noted that there exists a body of water just beneath the Earth’s crust that contains more water than what exists on the surface. This can be seen as evidence for the idea that God really did flood the Earth, and this could have been the water used to make it happen.
Theology- Does God make mistakes or change? Verse 6 makes it appear so because “it repented the Lord that He had made man on the Earth.” However, this would violate the nature of who God is, for we know that God is perfect and immutable. If God makes a mistake then He isn’t perfect. If He changes, then He isn’t truly immutable. So this makes a closer look at the word “repented” necessary to understanding who God is, and in what ways He repented, or regretted according to some translations.
The Hebrew word translated here is nâcham-naw-kham' (H5162) and it literally translates to sighed heavily. When Genesis 6:6 speaks of regret or repentance in reference to God, it’s not in the sense that He recognized He had made a mistake, Consider this: When a child disobeys their parents, it’s incumbent upon the parent to punish said child. The parent doesn’t enjoy punishing the child, and sighs heavily that it must be done. This is the way that God regretted making man; not in the sense of acknowledging a mistake, but in the sense of taking an action that He does not desire to complete.
There is an expression of love here. While it is fair to say that it pleases God to meet out justice, it can also be said that it saddens God to do so. Both emotions are present. God is able to be simultaneously pleased with His judgment, and sorrowful for it at the same time.
The analogy brings up another issue worth exploring. Did God know that man would rebel against Him to this point before He even created Him? If we understand that God is omniscient, then the simple answer to that question is yes. So the better question would be why God created man knowing He would rebel? The logical response is that He desires His creation to know Him, both His love and mercy as well as His justice and wrath. It’s for this reason that He withholds His mercy from some, and offers grace to others. Further, the flood also demonstrated the awesome power of God, for He destroyed every living creature that walked on land in 40 days.
Christology- Noah’s ark has long been compared to Jesus; and more precisely, the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ. The ark was prepared by God beforehand, and those called into it were saved from the wrath of God. Moreover, there is a direct correlation between Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and Jesus as the Ark of the New Covenant.
It’s important to note here that Catholics would call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant. This is derived from the fact that she is the one who carried the sacred and the promised. This justifies to them the act of sincere veneration that looks like worship to the Protestants. In reality, the Catholics are not worshipping Mary, at least not in their mind according to their theology, any more than the Jews were worshipping the Ark of the Covenant, but instead were worshipping God through the Ark of the Covenant.
This symbology falls apart when examining Noah’s Ark, and if it is to be compared with the Ark of the Covenant then it spoils the typology of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. 1 Peter 3:21-22 directly compares Noah’s Ark to Jesus, and declares that we are saved through Him. If the Marian dogma were to be believed about being the Ark of the Covenant, then it would be through Mary that we were saved, not through Jesus.
I raise this as a juxtaposition. We can say with all certainty that Noah’s Ark represents The Ark of the Covenant, which means Jesus is the fulfillment of both these previous covenants.
Pneumatology- Verse 3 says that God’s Spirit shall not strive with man forever, but that His days should be numbered 120 years. As discussed, this was an ominous warning about the coming flood, not the life expectancy of humans as most humans will not live anywhere near this long, and some humans have lived a bit longer. That being the case, there are still two roles of the Holy Spirit defined in this portion of Scripture.
The first is The Holy Spirit as the life preserver. God is the breath of life, He gives us His Spirit that we may live. In this way, we can honestly say that God loves all of His creation even if some are chosen, ultimately, for destruction. The Holy Spirit lives in every man, giving them the very breath of life. This is not to say that every man is chosen, or that the Spirit indwells with every man in the same way that He does with a Christian. However, He does indwell with them in the sense that He gives them life. If He pulls away, then the very breath of life is pulled away with Him. Acts 17:25 tells us that God gives life, and breath, to everyone, and His Spirit striving with us is the very essence of that life being given to us.
The second is the role of judgment the Holy Spirit plays. Again, the 120-year warning refers to the time God was allotting before the days of the flood. After 120 years, the Holy Spirit would be removed from the earth, and God would then pour out His judgment. In essence, the Holy Spirit represents a merciful side of God. This is seen also in John 3:8 in the sense that the Spirit of God goes where He would, and humans have no control over Him. He chooses whom He will show mercy to, and who will face the wrath of God. Since God chooses us by His Spirit, we can know that we are secure for we know that He holds on to us, not based on our goodness, or even for our obedience. But rather, He holds on to us for nothing more than His good pleasure.
Anthropology-Narrow is the path that leads to salvation, and broad is the road to Hell (Matt. 7:13-14). Out of the entire population of the Earth at the time, only Noah and his family were declared righteous. Actually, the Bible never says that his family was determined to be righteous, only Noah himself was declared as such in scripture. To assume that his family was also righteous is conjecture.
That being the case, it can be presumed that Naoh’s family were given grace because they fell under his headship. Now, headship isn’t something the Western man likes to accept, preferring instead to be the sole responsibility of ourselves, and others are likewise their own responsibility. To a degree, this is a correct way of viewing God’s interactions with us. After all, my salvation is not dependent upon my father's faith, but rather upon my own faith. At the same time, I’m declared righteous because I fall under the headship of Jesus Christ, whereas before I had faith in Jesus Christ I fell under the headship of Adam.
This is where a paedobaptist might conclude that this means infant baptism is the righteous response. After all, if the child is under the headship of the father, then it stands to reason that they should be brought into the fullness of the promise. Or at least the fullness of the earthly promise at any rate. But this denies the requirement of faith for the New Testament church. There are those who are under the first Adam who are Earthly and bear the image of him who is Earthly. We were all born under such circumstances, which is why we say we are all born under the curse of the first Adam. When we believe, we are transferred, by faith, under the headship of Jesus Christ and become a part of His spiritual Kingdom (1 Cor. 15:45-49). This means it would be inappropriate to declare a child under the headship of Christ before faith has been granted to the child. Once the child has been granted faith, there is no reason to keep them from the Kingdom of God, and the child may also enjoy the protections and guidance of their earthly father just as Ham was protected until he acted in a manner that showed his lack of faith, which will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 9.
Soteriology- The concept of total depravity could just as easily fit in Anthropology as it could soteriology. In this case, the concept is being discussed under soteriology because of its obvious connection to the saving grace of God.
Consider the antediluvians for a moment. It would be folly to think that they were simply brutal and unkind to each other twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. It’s more reasonable to assume that, for the most part, they lived normal lives. They got up in the morning and took care of whatever business they had to take care of. They celebrated holidays. They gave gifts to each other. They raised their children and loved them as best as someone without the Spirit of the Lord is capable. And yet, the imagination of their hearts was still wicked continuously.
“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” (Genesis 6:5). Man is inclined towards evil. It might be that we have free will, but in that free will we will freely choose sin unless our natural wills are overridden. The verse goes beyond saying we are simply evil; it goes on to say that every imagination of our hearts was only evil continually. This strikes at the core nature of man. We are selfish at heart under the best of circumstances. Even when we love we expect to be loved in return. We don’t give unless we expect something given back in return, even if that something is the good feeling of knowing we did something good. The age of social media has made this characteristic even more obvious as people flaunt, not only their sins but every good deed that they are doing for others. Some ask for money, but the biggest reason is so they can get their kudos, their thumbs up, their smiley faces or what have you. The point is, they want to be recognized for their good deeds so that they can feel like they’re a good person. Oftentimes they’ll use this affirmation to do not-so-kind things to other people in their life. Maybe they're neglecting a spouse, or snubbing their mother, or simply “saluting” a motorist who cut them off. The point is, their heart is still wicked, and wickedness rules their hearts even if they do nice things from time to time.
So far, even non-Calvisists should mostly agree with this sentiment. Where they would disagree is man’s complete inability to choose good, including to choose the belief in God. However, the concept of total depravity is enforced throughout scripture. Jeremiah, for example, expresses the wickedness of man’s heart when he says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Of course, it’s not just the Old Testament that speaks of the fallen state of man. For example, Paul explained that there is no one who is righteous, and no one who seeks after the heart of God (Romans 3:10-12). It would be fair to ask at this point, “Who can be saved at all?
Jesus answers this question for us, “ No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me to draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44). The Father must call us to Jesus in order for us to respond. If the Father calls not, then we as humans do not have the ability to respond. Nothing good rests in us, and we can’t even respond to the good news of Christ unless He calls us.
This begs the question of who is called, or rather, the concept of limited atonement. This is relevant to soteriology, and to this Chapter, because it asks the very important question of who will be saved. Specifically, limited atonement is the declaration that the blood of Jesus only atoned for the elect. Critiques say that this isn’t a fair understanding of scripture. After all, God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER should believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Despite the claim, limited atonement doesn’t counter John 3:16, nor any scripture which makes a similar claim about God allowing anyone who would come to Him to be saved, or any scripture about God not desiring any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). The question doesn’t deal with who’s allowed to come to Christ, all are still allowed, but only those who are called will. Simply put, all those who will come to Christ will be atoned, and only those who come to Christ will be atoned. Logically speaking, if Christ paid for the sins of every human being, then every human being would be in Heaven. This doesn’t negate God’s desires. God desires that none should perish, but He also knows that many will, as Jesus said, “Narrow is the gate that leads to salvation” (Matt. 7:13-14). God is complex, with non-linear emotions in the same way He created us to be. I may desire my daughter to be rewarded for helping her Mother clean the house, but if she doesn’t help her clean the house then I would be unjust if I rewarded her.
Likewise, the story of Noah’s Ark is a picture of limited atonement. The ark wasn’t designed to hold all of humanity. It was designed to hold 2 of every kind of unclean animal, seven of every kind of clean animal, and 8 humans, that is to say, Noah and his family. If there was any thought to the idea that more people could be saved, God would have had Noah build a bigger boat, or commissioned more people to build arks as well. This isn’t to say that Heaven is limited in space, but that the blood of Jesus covered the sins of those who it was meant to cover. Those who would remain in judgment are to remain in judgment.
Eschatology- Of all the times God has poured out His wrath, perhaps none is as well-known as the Great Flood. It’s so well-known, in fact, that multiple cultures across the world have a similar story. As a small sample: India has a great flood where the god Vishnu warns a man, Manu, and he survives by building a great boat. The Greeks believed that Zeus punished the Earth for its wickedness, Deucalion and Pyrrha survive by building a chest and repopulating the earth by throwing stones that become people. Africa, the Pacifica, and the Americas all have similar stories as well. Perhaps the most well-known, outside the Bible narrative, is the one from the Epic of Gilgamesh. In this story, Utnapishtim is warned by the god Ea about a flood meant to wipe out humanity. He builds a box-style boat, preserves life, and releases birds to find dry land.
This is all relevant to eschatology because it shows how deeply ingrained judgment is in our souls. We seem to intrinsically know that we deserve judgment, and even write stories about it. The world was judged once, and God will return in judgment a second time. Most people have a sense of entropy, we understand that everything in this world has a beginning and an end. We also have a sense of judgment in us, and if we’re honest with ourselves we know that we deserve judgment.
It’s sadly amusing when people talk about trying to make God accountable during their time of judgment. It has the same ring to it as the guy who says they would punch a Drill Sergeant during basic training (let those who’ve served understand). If you’ve ever seen a video of a flood or tidal wave then you begin to understand just how ridiculous this claim sounds. When it comes time to stand before almighty God, the one being judged will find themselves utterly powerless to render a response. Instead, the magnitude of His terror and beauty will cause all to fall on their knees in obedience. Those who are counted worthy through faith will be welcomed into His Kingdom and kept safe in the Ark of Jesus Christ. Those who are not faithful will find themselves on the judgment side of God.
Ecclesiology- It is interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be a litmus test that Noah made his sons pass before entering the Ark. They were part of Noah’s family, and by faith, they entered the Ark with their wives. It can be assumed that they were taught about who God is, and there may have been some profession of faith. But the Bible is mute on all of these points. What we know is that the sons entered the Ark along with Noah (one of the sons will show themselves to be unfaithful, but there will be more discussion of that in Chapter 9).
This is relevant because it is common for many churches to require taking a class before being brought into the body of Christ. Most Protestant churches only require a simple confession of faith; however, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and many historic Protestant Churches require several weeks of classes before enjoying the benefits of Christian sacraments. There is a human understanding of why churches do this. The tendency to apostatize is frequent in Christian history. But, one has to ask if this is the actual Biblical model of bringing people into the faith?
To be clear, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any teaching of the faith before conversion. Indeed, Peter talked with the crowd for hours before telling them that they needed to believe and be baptized. Likewise, Phillip spent time explaining to the eunuch the particulars of the Christian faith before baptizing him. But in neither of these classes were weeks of classes expected. Then the fact that baptism is only offered once a year in some of these cases is even more egregious. The role of conversion should be a simple matter of faith after what that faith means is defined. There should be no need for extra education for one to put their trust in Jesus, and to enter the Ark of Rest.
Angelology- It was mentioned earlier how this chapter reveals a question about the nature of angels. In particular, Chapter 6 deals with “the sons of God.” As discussed earlier, it’s contested whether or not this passage is referring to angels or the Sethites. The idea of these being angels seems to run against the concept that angels are spirit beings. Jesus said that in Heaven we’d be as the angels of Heaven, and neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30).
But perhaps we are limiting angels where no such limitation exists. While the book of Enoch isn’t canon, at least not in Western churches, it’s noteworthy that Jude references the book in his own epistle. If the book of Enoch is to be believed, then there are a number of things that can be concluded about angels.
According to the Book of Enoch, 200 specialty angels known as Watchers left Heaven and joined with man. These Watchers imparted special knowledge on the sons of man, knowledge that made them forsake God and embrace wickedness. As they did so, they also took for themselves the daughters of man and had children who were half human and half angel known as Nephilim. These angels who abandoned their position are locked up in chains of darkness, more on this when we discuss demonology.
Is there a precedent for this? Is it conceivable that angels can have marital relations with humans? In the popular movie, “City of Angels,” Nicholas Cage falls in love with a human woman and in order to be with her, he falls. In falling he becomes human and be with the Meg Ryan character. I’m not suggesting that we take our study notes from Hollywood movies, but it serves as an example of possibilities.
But even scripturally there are some notes that might make such a union plausible. There are times when an angel of the Lord manifests as a human. When Abraham fed the three guests, one we know to be the Lord, but the other two were angels. All three ate the food that Abraham prepared for them (Gen. 18:8). They appeared as men. Later, the two angels, appearing as men, went to Sodom and appeared human enough that the men of the city thought they could rape them.
It’s also noteworthy that Paul encourages us to be hospitable to strangers because some of them might be angels that we entertain unaware that they are angels (Hebrews 13:2). So, it would seem that angels can pass off as humans, including eating and drinking. I confess that it would be a leap to conclude that these same beings could also sire children, but there is no scripture that seems to prevent it either.
Satanology-
Demonology- It’s worth noting here that Enoch has a different idea of demons then what is typically believed by most Christians. The typical understanding of demons is that they are fallen angels, that they rebelled against God along with Satan.
However, the Book of Enoch makes a slightly different claim about demons. The angels that rebelled are thrown into a giant chasm with no bottom, and no sky. However, the children of these angels, the Nephilim, were cursed to roam the earth for all eternity. They could never have a normal afterlife, but would forever be evil spirits that wander the earth. It is these that Enoch seems to imply that it is these spirits who became what we know of today as demons.
Of course, Enoch isn’t considered canon by Protestants, Catholics, or even most Orthodox churches. At the same time, it was credible enough for Jude to reference the work. So even though we shouldn’t use the book to establish doctrine, we can still look at it and glean from it certain ideas. Perhaps if we set aside the terminology of demons and Nephilim we can establish some certain truths: Those who rebel against God’s established order will be judged. Tyrants against God’s people will not be permitted to stand. Hell is a void designed for the angels who rebelled against God.
Heresies-
Gnostic Dualism/Manichaeism- This belief teaches that the world is evil, but the Spiritual world is good. They taught that salvation came from escaping the physical world. They view the “Sons of God” as lesser Gods that got thrown out of Heaven. This aligns closely with those who believe that the Sons of God were fallen angels, but isn’t necessarily the same thing. The Gnostics hold to the idea that these fallen gods created an evil world, and that man’s chief goal is to escape the world. This idea is profoundly un-Christian in that it says that what God has created is inherently evil.
Mysticism- There are some that teach that the Sons of God were intermediaries to impart divine wisdom to man. Those that received this divine wisdom were called Nephelium, or giants. While this isn’t necessarily heretical, it should be noted that this interpretation can be viewed as overly allegorical, and was roundly condemned by the early church.
Alien Theories- Some people have recently hypothesized that The Sons of God are aliens from another planet. This is highly speculative, at best, and isn’t supported by Scripture.
Final Thoughts- Many people want to close their eyes and pretend that life will continue for them just as it always has. Destruction often catches us unaware, even if we spend time preparing for it. Even in localized areas, a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, fire, or any number of other natural disasters often leave us powerless and at the mercy of our neighbors to save us. No matter what you believe the Sons of God or the Sons of Man to be, no matter your opinions on the exact dimensions of Noah’s Ark, and no matter what you believe the giants of those days were, the fact remains that God did bring judgment onto those people. They were living life in the same ways that they always had, and then destruction caught them unaware. The only ones who were saved were the ones who entered Noah’s Ark. Those who entered Noah’s Ark were certain of two things:
That God was going to judge the whole Earth.
That those who were brought into the Ark would be saved.
The Gospel is clear throughout the story of Noah’s Ark, and there will be more said of it in the next three chapters. The idea of judgment is certain in the Christian mind. In this life or the next, we will all stand before the perfect judge and either experience His wrath, or His mercy. The plea is to enter into the Ark of Christ through faith and be saved from the righteous judgment of God.
Comments
Post a Comment