Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
Genesis 6 (The Flood is Coming)
For this section, read “The Genesis Flood: Global or Local?”
(6:1-4) Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
(Gen. 6:3) Do humans really live for 120 years? There are two ways to understand this text. The first option is that the 120 years refers to the length of time before God flooded the Earth in Noah’s time. The second option is that this sets a relative time limit for people’s lives today. This must be a general age-limit, and it didn’t go into effect immediately. This is similar to how God declared death for Adam and Eve, but it took centuries for them to die. Currently, the cells in our body will not regenerate beyond roughly 120 years (i.e. apoptosis). Indeed, only one out of two billion people will live to 115 years old.[1]
(Gen. 6:4) Who or what were the Nephilim? The “sons of God” refers to angels (demons) having sex with human women and producing offspring (i.e. the Nephilim). Many ancient interpreters held this view, including many Jewish interpreters,[2] Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.[3] Indeed, the first-century historian Josephus writes,
Many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.[4]
Modern interpreters like Gordon Wenham[5] and Willem VanGemeren[6] hold this view. In fact, VanGemeren offers the best defense of this perspective. Below, we give a verse-by-verse interpretation:
(Gen. 6:1-2) Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
The “sons of God” are distinct from the “daughters of men.”
The use of “men” consistently refers to all of humanity in verses 1-4.
The exact Hebrew phrase “sons of God” (béne-ha’elohim) occurs only here and in Job. In Job, it clearly refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). Similar descriptors of “sons of God” are also used of angels (Ps. 29:1; 89:7).
The earliest translation of the Hebrew text renders this as “angels” (Gr. angeloi; see Codex Alexandrinus).[7] The LXX translates this as “angels” as well (ángeloi toú theoú).
(Gen. 6:3) Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
Under this interpretation, God judges humanity for the grave sin of interbreeding with demons. If regular occult practice incurs capital punishment (Deut. 18:10-12), then how much more would this practice?
Rather than bearing children in the “image of God” and then the subsequent “image” of humans (Gen. 5:3), these humans in Genesis 6 were interbreeding with angels (demons) and producing bizarre offspring (Nephilim, “mighty men”).
(Gen. 6:4) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Elsewhere, the term Nephilim refers to giants. The spies told Moses and Aaron, “There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” (Num. 13:33).
Moses refers to the Emim who were as “tall as the Anakim” (Deut. 2:10).
The Rephaim (another term rendered as “giants”) had two giants: Og—the king of Bashan—slept in a 13-foot bed (Deut. 3:11). Goliath (who was also a Rephaite; 1 Chron. 20:4, 6, 8; 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20) was a staggering 9 feet tall (1 Sam. 17:4), and had a deformed 24 fingers and toes (1 Chron. 20:6). King Saul was a head taller than every Israelite, and he was even terrified of Goliath’s massive stature (1 Sam. 9:2).
This must be why the Septuagint,[8] Theodotian, the Latin Vulgate, and many ancient targums translate the Hebrew word Nephilim as “giants.”
Demons have direct access to people on Earth. When God asked Satan where he had been, he replied, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it” (Job 2:2). Satan and demons dwell on Earth (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Jn. 5:19). Proponents of this view also point out that 1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6-7 refer to this event. This view is the most likely because it handles these NT texts better than any other.
This view could explain why Pagan religion contains so many references to supernatural god-men. Ross writes,
Giants also are described in extrabiblical literature. The Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Mesopotamians, and Egyptians, for example, all wrote stories of famous heroes, men of supernatural size and strength. Greek literature is especially rich in this respect and the Philistines who settled in the coastal plain of Canaan came from Greece or Crete. In all their accounts, the superheroes came from the sexual union between immortal ‘gods’ and mortal humans.[9]
Waltke agrees, “These heroes may provide the historical base behind the accounts of semidivine heroes, such as Gilgamesh, of mythology. Instead of the Bible representing myth as history, as is commonly alleged, perhaps the ancients transformed history into myth.”[10]
Criticisms of this view considered
CRITIQUE #1: God wouldn’t judge humans for something that demons did. Not true. God judged the first humans for siding with Satan (Gen. 3), and God holds humans responsible for consorting with demons (Deut. 18:10). Furthermore, both Peter (1 Pet. 3:19-20; 2 Pet. 2:4-11) and Jude (1:6-7) claim that God judged these demons by sending them to the abyss. Indeed, Hamilton[11] notes that animals are judged for the sins of humans (Gen. 6:7).
CRITIQUE #2: How could angels (demons) breed with humans, when Jesus stated that angels are neither given nor taken in marriage? (Mt. 22:30) A number of counter arguments can be made: First, Jesus is referring to angels—not demons—in this passage. There are multiple species of angels—not just one type (see “Angelology”). So, it’s possible that Jesus only has one type in mind.
Second, Jesus could be referring to the moral will of God regarding angels—not what they are capable of doing.
Third, angels regularly take on human functions (Josh. 5:13-15; Dan. 3:25; 9:1-23; 10:4ff; Lk. 1:11-20; 24:4-8; Acts 1:10-11; 10:2-8; 12:4-11; 27:23; Heb. 13:2; Rev. 21:9-22:11). Even in the same book, the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels in Genesis 19. Therefore, it really isn’t too difficult to believe that a demon could possess sexual capability. Though Derek Kidner remains agnostic on how to interpret this passage, he does note, “The craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience.”[12] This would explain why God dealt so severely with these angelic beings (Jude 6-7). Likewise, Wenham concludes, “If the modern reader finds this story incredible, that reflects a materialism that tends to doubt the existence of spirits, good or ill. But those who believe that the creator could unite himself to human nature in the Virgin’s womb will not find this story intrinsically beyond belief.”[13]
“They took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” This language implies that the “sons of God” took whatever woman they wanted. The language mirrors the sin of Eve: “saw… beautiful/good (ṭôb)… took” (Gen. 3:6). Moreover, they only chose them because they were “beautiful.” While married these women, they still “took” them in marriage. All of this seems to imply that they were treating these women like sexual objects.
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.” This must refer to the later twisted and deformed humans in the days of Moses (Num. 13:32-33).
(6:5-8) Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 So the Lord was sorry that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 Then the Lord said, “I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky. For I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth.” What God “saw” is in direct contrast with what he saw in his good Creation (Gen. 1). Humans gained the knowledge of “good and evil” in the Garden. What did that get them? Only “wickedness” and “every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil [raʿ] continually.”
“Grieved” (ʿāṣab) describes a “mixture of rage and bitter anguish.”[14] This is how Dinah’s brothers felt after they heard that their sister had been raped (Gen. 34:7), and David felt this way after discovering that his son, Absalom, had died (2 Sam. 19:3).
God gave the humans the privilege of reproduction (Gen. 1:28), but they reproduced with demons! (Gen. 6:2) God wanted them to be “fruitful and multiply” across the Earth, but this only resulted in their “wickedness” being “great on the earth.” These humans thought this made them “great,” but God viewed this as deplorable.
(Gen. 6:6) Did God make a mistake in creating mankind? The word “regretted” (nāḥam) can be translated as “consoling himself” (Gen. 27:42). The root word reflects the idea of “breathing or sighing, deeply,” and it “suggests a physical display of one’s feelings—sorrow, compassion or comfort.”[15] This word is used for God in a number of instances (Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11; Jer. 26:3). Here in Genesis 6, God was tremendously affected by the evil and suffering on Earth. Therefore, this passage is not addressing the intellectual knowledge of God; it is addressing the emotional concern of God. God isn’t upset with his creation, but with what his creation has freely chosen. Mathews writes, “The making of ‘man’ is no error; it is what ‘man’ has made of himself.”[16]
“I will wipe out mankind whom I have created from the face of the land; mankind, and animals as well, and crawling things, and the birds of the sky.” Sailhamer writes, “The effect is to show that the Flood was a reversal of God’s good work of Creation.”[17]
“But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” God was deeply grieved over the sin of humanity, and he was ready to judge humans for this. However, amid all of the judgment, we still find grace. God was searching for a person to rescue: “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.”
God’s plan through Noah
(6:9-12) These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah fathered three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth.
Noah was relatively righteous (vv.9-10) compared to the depraved people who were living during the time of the Flood (vv.11-12). He is depicted as “pure white,” while the world is depicted as “pitch black.”[18]
“Blameless” (tāmîm) doesn’t mean “sinless,” but “perhaps a word like ‘wholesome’ or ‘sound’ or ‘candid’ would be appropriate when applying this word to people.”[19]
The world is “corrupt” (šāḥaṯ), and this word occurs again and again throughout this section to describe humanity’s treatment of God’s creation, as well as God’s judgment. Hamilton writes, “God’s decision is to destroy what is virtually self-destroyed or self-destroying already.”[20]
Why was Noah righteous? It was because he “walked with God” (v.9). This is a deliberate parallel with Enoch who also “walked with God” (Gen. 5:24). Wenham writes, “Someone called ‘good’ in English would be described as ‘righteous’ in Hebrew. So in describing Noah as righteous, he is being pointed to as a good man who lived according to God’s standards of behavior.”[21]
“The earth was corrupt in the sight of God.” The fact that the world was “corrupt” (mišḥat) shows that “what God decided to ‘destroy’ had been virtually self-destroyed already.”[22] This is the same term used in the subsequent verse for how God will “destroy” (mišḥatām) of the world.
“God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” The last time these exact words[23] appeared was at the end of the creation account: “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). God’s creation was no longer “very good” but totally “corrupt.”
The images of horror movies can disturb us for a few days, and this is only fake blood and guts. But imagine if you could see the real world through omniscient eyes. Imagine if you saw it all, and there was no turning away. Just consider how nauseating this would be! What would a holy and righteous God do when he sees all of this evil and suffering?
(6:13-14) Then God said to Noah, “The end of humanity has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of people; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with compartments, and cover it inside and out with pitch.”
“God said to Noah, ‘The end of humanity has come before Me.’” God brings Noah into his confidence. By contrast, in the Babylonian accounts, the gods “keep their decisions secret from any person so that all will be killed.”[24]
The word “ark” (tēbâ) doesn’t refer to a ship, but to a barge or a “chest.”[25] The same term is used for the water-sealed “basket” that the baby Moses entered to survive the Nile River (Ex. 2:3). This barge wasn’t meant to sail, but merely to survive. If it could float and weather the storm, then this would accomplish its mission.
Indeed, the dimensions of the Ark fit what we would expect. Hamilton writes, “The point to be observed here is that the dimensions of Noah’s vessel are completely logical, and what one would expect to find in a seagoing vessel. Compare these dimensions with those of Utnapishtim’s boat (in Babylonian, elippu) in the Gilgamesh Epic, which is a perfect cube of 120 cubits. To be sure, Noah’s ark does not compare in size with the Queen Elizabeth II or some other modern ocean liner, but it is considerably bigger than Columbus’s Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. The size of Noah’s ark possibly suggests that it was large enough and strong enough to weather the Flood, and that it contained enough space (an approximate total deck area of 95,700 sq. ft.) to accommodate all the animals.”[26]
“Gopher wood” (gōp̱er) is “an unknown species of a tree.”[27]
(6:15-16) This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and put the door of the ark on the side; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks.
A “cubit” was the distance from the elbow to the tip of the finger on a grown man (or roughly 18 inches). Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that “the size of the ark was enormous by ancient as well as modern standards.”[28]
How could Noah and his three sons build the Ark. We shouldn’t assume that Noah and his sons built the Ark on their own. Sailhamer[29] raises the salient question as to why they couldn’t have hired men to work for them. For instance, Bezalel and Oholiab built the Tabernacle (Ex. 31:2-6), but other men helped them (Ex. 36:6).
(6:17) Now behold, I Myself am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which there is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.
Global Flood proponents take verse 17 in a straightforward way: God will destroy “all flesh… under heaven.” However, this can also be used to describe a local region (Gen. 41:56-57; Deut. 2:25; 1 Kin. 4:34; 10:24; 2 Chron. 36:23; Dan. 2:38; 4:22; 5:19; Lk. 2:1). Moreover, the Hebrew word for “earth” (ʾereṣ) can be translated as “land.” Thus Genesis 6:17 could state: “Everything that is in the land shall die.”[30] Under this view, the flood was universal to wherever humans were. That is, if humans hadn’t made it into Antarctica yet, then God wouldn’t have brought the flood that far.
Once again, the biblical account differs from the Babylonian accounts: “In the Babylonian tradition, the flood got out of control and the frightened gods ‘cowered like dogs.’ (Ancient Near Eastern Text, 94, lines 105-23, esp. 115) God, however, sovereignly rules over it (Ps. 29:10).”[31]
(6:18-19) But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
Global flood theorists ask: If God was only destroying a small portion of the globe, then why was it necessary to pack up the animals? Local flood theorists maintain that this could have been for the purpose of repopulating Noah’s personal herds, and it would jumpstart the local territory to have two of each animal for Noah and his family.
(6:20-22) Of the birds according to their kind, and of the animals according to their kind, of every crawling thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of every food that is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and them.” 22 So Noah did these things; according to everything that God had commanded him, so he did.
“Two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.” When a boat is going to sink, even rats can sense that they need to “abandon ship.” Here, this principle works in reverse: The world is going to sink! So, the animals instinctually come to Noah and the Ark. Additionally, God most likely superintended this process: “God’s power can be discerned in the instinctual coming of the animals to Noah.”[32]
“Take for yourself some of every food that is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and them.” This must’ve been a massive amount of food to feed these animals over the course of a year, as well as a lot of manure to shovel out of the Ark! However, it’s also possible that the animals were in a state of supernatural hibernation.[33]
“Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.” This shows that Noah was a man of deep faith, trusting God’s words over his circumstances.
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-4. What is your view on the “sons of God” and the “Nephilim”?
How would you respond to someone who said that it is unfair that God judged humans with this Flood?
Do you hold to a Local Flood or a Global Flood? Note: even a “Local Flood” would include destroying all human life on Earth (Mt. 24:37-39; Lk. 17:27; 1 Pet. 3:20; Heb. 11:7).
What aspects of this chapter help to show the plausibility of the Flood account?
Genesis 7 (The Flood has Arrived)
Does this chapter support the JEDP theory? Critical scholars see multiple sources behind the text (see “Authorship of the Pentateuch” for a fuller discussion and defense of Mosaic authorship). To advance this thesis, they point to several repetitions of the author(s). Indeed, many repetitions occur: the wickedness of humans (Gen. 6:5, 12), prediction of the Flood (Gen. 6:17; 7:4), command to enter the Ark (Gen. 6:18; 7:1), etc. Critical scholars stated that this demonstrates that two sources stand behind the text: the “Priestly Source” (P) and “Yahwist Source” (J). One critical scholar went so far as to call this a “masterpiece”[34] of modern biblical criticism. Another said that this was one of “the most brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism, and affords a particularly instructive lesson in the art of documentary analysis.”[35] Does this repetition demonstrate two authors?
No. The author is using a literary motif through the use of repetition. Indeed, sometimes Moses repeats himself three, four, or five times throughout this narrative.
- THREE TIMES: Moses records that the rain is coming three times (Gen. 7:6, 10, 11-12). Does this imply three sources?
- FOUR TIMES: God states that he will destroy humanity four times (Gen. 6:5-7, 11-13, 17; 7:4), and the text records the entering of the Ark four times as well (Gen. 7:7-9, 13-14, 15, 16). Does this imply four sources?
- FIVE TIMES: The rising of the waters (Gen. 7:17, 18, 19, 20, 24) and the lowering of the waters (Gen. 8:1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are both mentioned five Does this imply five sources?
Sailhamer[36] states that these are examples of “epic repetition” or “chiastic coordination.” Indeed, this literary symmetry seems to communicate that God is sovereign and in charge of the Flood. That is, while the Flood seems out of control, the literary description is elegant and carefully crafted, showing God’s sovereignty over it all.
Chapter 6 uses God (ʾĕlōhîm) and chapter 7 uses LORD (Yahweh). However, Genesis 7:9 uses “God” (ʾĕlōhîm). How would we explain this shift? Hamilton[37] argues that the focus is on Noah as the main actor—not God. Therefore, God’s general name is used, keeping the focus on Noah.
(7:1) Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this generation.”
In Hebrew, the text literally states, “I have seen you, a righteous person.”[38] Noah was not chosen because of his righteous deeds. Rather, God chose this righteous man for his plan. Hamilton writes, “The point made by 7:1 is that the explanation for Noah’s righteousness is not merit, but rather the purpose of Yahweh. God has chosen Noah as the suitable representative of the human race, the one by whom or through whom humanity might be preserved.”[39]
(7:2-5) You shall take with you seven pairs of every clean animal, a male and his female; and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the sky, seven pairs, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights; and I will wipe out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.” 5 So Noah acted in accordance with everything that the Lord had commanded him.
God told Noah to bring “seven pairs of every clean animal” into the Ark as a way of showing that he was following God’s will and God’s way. While unclean animals would be on the Ark (v.8), Noah and his family would only eat the clean animals. Sailhamer[40] shows that the language is similar to the animal offerings in the Tabernacle. The reason Noah and his family were spared was because they did “as God had commanded” (Gen. 6:22; 7:5, 9, 16).
The mention of bringing seven animals (rather than pairs) is not a contradiction. The “concern is with the rule, not the exception.” That is, “the provision of extra animals for sacrifice cannot be made to conflict with the requirement of a pair for breeding.”[41] Indeed, many of these clean animals are later explicitly used as sacrifices: “Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20). These additional animals were surely brought for the purpose of sacrifices after the Flood was over. Presumably, not all seven pairs were sacrificed, so these must’ve helped to repopulate the animal kingdom.
In Genesis 6:19-20, the mention of bringing “two of every kind” (šenayim) can be read “as a collective for ‘pairs’” for “one cannot form a plural of a word that is dual.” Consequently, Genesis 6 recounts the “general statement,” but Genesis 7 gives more detail.[42]
“For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth.” When the time was close, God made an exact prediction: The Flood would come in one week. Just imagine hearing this news: The entire world as you knew it would be over in a matter of days!
(7:6-12) Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth. 7 Then Noah and his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that crawls on the ground, 9 they all went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. 10 Now it came about after the seven days, that the waters of the flood came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
“Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth” (v.6). Noah had heard that God would bring the Flood 120 years earlier. He had been constructing this big barge for decades at this point, and he must’ve looked foolish to the people in his close vicinity. It isn’t hard to imagine his neighbors saying, “Look at crazy Noah and his sons building that big barge… in the middle of the desert!”
But all of this changed when the “flood water came upon the earth.” In the same way, followers of Jesus have many priorities that make no sense to the surrounding world. However, when Jesus returns, every single act of faith will be validated.
“Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood” (v.7). This verse “reads as though they scramble on board just before the waters of the flood.”[43] As the waters rose, they fled inside the Ark.
Why is there a delay of seven days? (v.10) The rabbis held a number of views: (1) mourning the death of Methuselah or (2) divine mourning over the death of the creatures on the globe. We think that a third option is most likely: God was giving one final chance for people to come to repentance and be saved from the Flood.[44]
“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open” (v.11). Is this myth? Legend? Hardly. Moses goes out of his way to give precise dates and times to describe this cataclysmic event. Kidner notes, “The precise date, with its lack of obvious symbolism, has the mark of a plain fact well remembered.”[45] These specific dates “invest the story with importance and historical credibility.”[46] Matthews concurs, “The biblical account sets the event in a historical framework. For the author of Genesis the flood event is as real as the birth of Abraham.”[47]
“On that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” (v.11). The judgment from the “great deep” is God’s solution to the “great” wickedness of the human race (Gen. 6:5).
(7:13) On this very same day Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark.
Why does the text depict a second entering of the Ark? Matthews states that this isn’t “contradictory” information from earlier (vv.6-10), but “supplementary” details. As a good storyteller, Moses flashes back to show the faith of the people entering the Ark. He gives “additional specifics so as to reinforce the critical act of faith by this small band of eight trusting souls who do not turn back.”[48]
Moral debauchery during this time was rampant. Lamech took “two wives” (Gen. 4:19), and angels (demons) were taking human wives (Gen. 6:2). Noah and his sons, however, remained monogamous. Each man took one wife on board the ark. This speaks to Noah being a “righteous man” (Gen. 6:9).
Why haven’t Noah’s sons and daughters-in-law had children? Since they knew the Flood was coming and that the Ark would be cramped, they must’ve waited to have kids until after the Flood (Gen. 9:1).
(7:14-16) They and every animal according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kind, and every crawling thing that crawls on the earth according to its kind, and every bird according to its kind, all sorts of birds. 15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. 16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the Lord closed the door behind him.
“The Lord closed the door behind him.” In the Gilgamesh Epic, Utnapishtim was the one to shut the door (11:93). Not so in Genesis. God closes the door. On a barge of this size, the gang plank must’ve been enormous, and God gave no instructions for how to close it. The people inside the ark needed to trust that God would close it for them. This points to “the divine director behind the operation.”[49] Waltke observes, “In the Mesopotamian parallels, the heroes shut the hatch themselves. Noah’s salvation is due to divine grace. God’s act signals the divine protection that keeps the raging flood from capsizing the vessel.”[50] Matthews concurs, “Closing the ark’s door signals the divine protection that kept out the raging seas. Noah and his companions did their part ‘as God had commanded.’ Now the covenant Lord does his part, sealing the door, which could result in either their doom or their salvation.”[51] Put simply, the passengers were helpless before God if that door wasn’t shut.
(7:17-24) Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
Local flood advocates argue that “covered” (kāsâ) could refer to rained over—not necessarily submerged. Harris, Archer, and Waltke define “covered” (kāsâ) as “residing upon,” “running over,” or “falling upon.”[52] Ross writes, “Kasha can be interpreted to mean that more than twenty feet of water stood, that is, remained, over the high hills or mountains; or it could mean that this quantity of water either ran over them as in a flash flood or fell upon them as rainfall… Any of the… scenarios would guarantee total destruction, no survivors.”[53] Likewise, OT scholar John Walton writes, “This verb is used for a wide variety of ‘covering’ possibilities. A people or weeds can be so vast that it covers the land (Num. 22:11; Prov. 24:31); a blanket or clothing covers someone (Ex. 28:42; 1 Kings 1:1). Something can be covered in the sense of being overshadowed (cherubim wings covering the ark, 2 Chron. 5:8; clouds covering the sky, Ps. 147:8)… Even today when someone walks in from a downpour we might say, ‘You’re covered with water!’ If Genesis 7:19 is taken the same way, it suggests that the mountains were drenched with water or coursing with flash floods, but it does not demand that they were totally submerged under water.”[54] Perhaps Noah measured this figure by seeing that half of the Ark was submerged in the water (i.e. 15 cubits).[55]
Moreover, when the text says, “everywhere under the heavens,” this could refer to the local region as well. At Pentecost, Luke records that “devout men from every nation under heaven” were present (Acts 2:5). Of course, when we read this, we do not believe that people from Canada or South America were present.
Global flood proponents argue that the mountains hadn’t risen high above the ground at this time.[56]
(7:20) The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
Local flood advocates argue that the word “higher” (maʿal) can also be translated “upward.” Thus, this verse would be saying that fifteen feet of water came down from above. Walton writes, “The Hebrew text says, ‘Fifteen cubits from above [maʿal] rose the waters, and the mountains were covered.’ It is therefore not at all clear that it is suggesting the waters rose fifteen cubits higher than the mountains… Its most common use is to delineate the position of one object relative to another.”[57]
Moreover, the “mountains” (har) for mountains can also be translated as “hill” or “mount.”[58] This would likewise change the way we would interpret this passage of Scripture in regard to a local or global flood.
(7:21-24) So all creatures that moved on the earth perished: birds, livestock, animals, and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 So He wiped out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from mankind to animals, to crawling things, and the birds of the sky, and they were wiped out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the earth for 150 days.
“Only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.” Hamilton writes, “Noah is saved because of Yahweh. And Noah’s family is saved because of Noah.”[59] For more on the debate over the Flood, see our earlier article, “The Genesis Flood: Global or Local?”
Questions for Reflection
Noah built a massive barge in the middle of the desert for 120 years. Surely his neighbors thought this was insane. As followers of Jesus, we believe in the Second Coming of Christ. How might our priorities look absurd to people in our culture?
What did God do to rescue Noah and his family? What was Noah’s responsibility in being saved from the Flood?
Genesis 8 (The Flood Subsides)
(8:1) But God remembered Noah and all the animals and all the livestock that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided.
“God remembered Noah.” This is anthropomorphic language that describes how God will “act upon a previous commitment to a covenant partner (see 9:14-15; 19:29; 30:22; Ex. 2:24; 6:5; 32:13; 1 Sam. 1:19; Judg. 16:28; Job 14:13; Ps. 8:4; 9:12; 74:1-3; 98:3; 105:8; 106:45; 111:5; Jer. 15:15).”[60] This is similar to how humans should “remember the Sabbath day” (Ex. 20:8) or “remember God’s holy covenant” (Lk. 1:72). In both cases, humans did not have amnesia. Rather, the imperative is to actively act on keeping the Sabbath or being cognizant of the covenant.
Sailhamer[61] and Waltke[62] both show that this verse is the center of the Flood narrative:
- 7 days of waiting for flood (7:4)
- 7 days of waiting for flood (7:10)
- 40 days of flood (7:17a)
- 150 days of water triumphing (7:24)
- But God remembered Noah (8:1)
- 150 days of water waning (8:3)
- 40 days of waiting (8:6)
- 7 days of waiting (8:10)
- 7 days of waiting (8:12)
This shows that the emphasis of the story isn’t about God’s wrath (though that is essential to the narrative). Rather, the focus is about God’s love and concern for Noah and his family. To a biblically trained mind, it shouldn’t shock us that God would destroy a race of humans where “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen. 6:5 NIV). The astonishing part is that he would be merciful to anyone.
Advocates of the local flood point out that a wind would do nothing to remove water that was around the entire Earth. But it could help to remove a local flood by displacing the water from one region to another.
(8:2-4) Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; 3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of 150 days the water decreased. 4 Then in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.
Advocates of the local flood point out that the ark did not land on Mount Ararat itself. Instead, it landed on the “mountains” (plural) of Ararat. Therefore, it could have landed on one of the smaller mountains. These mountains cover a 100,000 square mile territory.[63] Apologist Richard Deem writes, “If the ark had come to rest on the top of Mount Ararat, this would be at 17,000-foot elevation. Olive trees (and every other tree) do not grow at 17,000 feet. In fact, you will not find olive trees growing much above 5,000 feet.”[64] Furthermore, a bird would not be equipped to fly at altitudes like this to fetch the olive branch.
(8:5) And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
How can the Ark rest on the mountains in the seventh month, but the mountains weren’t visible until the tenth month? Modern commentators throw their hands up with incredulity. Hamilton states that he sees “no credible way of harmonizing the information,” and possible harmonizations “sound specious” in his opinion.
The rejection of plausible harmonizations in academia is the problem—not the account itself. One plausible explanation is that the massive Ark rested on one of the mountain tops underwater before the tops of the mountains were visible. After all, the waters slowly decreased, and the Ark would’ve touched down on the mountain top before the waters exposed it two and a half months later. Partial inerrantists need to work on thinking more broadly about the text, rather than holding such a myopic view that indicts the Bible with error.
“The tops of the mountains became visible.” Advocates of the local flood point out that this seems like perspectival language. Ross writes, “The text speaks only of the region visible to Noah, not of the peaks beyond his horizon.”[65] Thus this passage says nothing of Mount Everest or any other mountain on Earth—just the geography around Noah.
(8:6-12) Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; 7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove, to see if the water was low on the surface of the land; 9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of its foot, so it returned to him in the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took it, and brought it into the ark to himself. 10 So he waited another seven days longer; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. 11 And the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, in its beak was a fresh olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was low on the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days longer, and sent out the dove; but it did not return to him again.
“Raven… dove.” The Epic of Gilgamesh has this wrong. In this account, the birds are released in reverse: a dove, a swallow, and a raven (tablet 11).
I sent forth and set free a dove.
The dove went forth, but came back;
Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round.
Then I sent forth and set free a swallow.
The swallow went forth, but came back;
Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round.
Then I sent forth and set free a raven.
The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished,
He eats, circles, caws, and turns not round.
This navigational and nautical process is mistaken, however. The raven should have been released first—not last. Waltke comments, “The raven braves the storm, can feed on carrion, and as the stronger bird can remain in flight much longer. It makes sense, as in the biblical account, to send out the stronger raven before the gentle, timid, and low-flying dove, but none to reverse the sequence, as in the Babylonian epic.”[66] Thus, “the biblical sequence has more of the ring of truth about it… The progression from raven to dove makes more sense than that of dove to raven.”[67]
Furthermore, this section of the Babylonian account post-dates the biblical account. The description of the birds comes from the 11th tablet that dates to 750 BC and other accounts date to 300 BC. None of the earlier editions mention birds. Thus, Hamilton[68] observes that this is the closest parallel between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the Genesis account is far more realistic than the later Babylonian account.
“The dove came to him in the evening, and behold, in its beak was a fresh olive leaf.” Advocates of the local flood point out that if the entire world was destroyed, then obviously olive trees wouldn’t exist so soon. These would need longer than a few months to regrow. This also fits with the notion that Noah immediately began to farm and plant a vineyard after exiting the Ark (Gen. 9:20).
(8:13-14) Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, that the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground had dried up. 14 And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
Even though the ground was dry, Noah waits for God to release him back onto the Earth.
Exiting the Ark
(8:15-19) Then God spoke to Noah, saying, 16 “Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. 17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every crawling thing that crawls on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.” 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him. 19 Every animal, every crawling thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark.”
The depiction of the animals harkens back to Creation (Gen. 1:20-22). The language in chapter 9 describes a recreation of the Earth.
Surely, Noah and his family felt cramped on the Ark after living in it for so long. Yet, even though the ground was dry, Noah didn’t leave the Ark until God gave him the “all clear.”
(8:20-22) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took some of every kind of clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”
“Noah built an altar to the Lord.” This is the first record of someone building an altar to God in the Bible.
“The Lord smelled the soothing aroma.” God appreciates the sacrifice, but he doesn’t need it. Hamilton writes, “This verse does not mention the motif of God’s craving for food. The lack of this theme is striking when one compares the biblical story with the Gilgamesh Epic and the Atrahasis Epic. In both the Mesopotamian stories the survivor also offers a food sacrifice to the gods, who swarm around it ‘like flies,’ for they have gone without food for seven days and seven nights, the Flood’s duration.”[69]
“The LORD said to Himself.” Noah doesn’t manipulate God with this sacrificial offering. Hamilton writes, “Had Noah been the recipient of this information, the story would have opened the door to the possibility that what is involved here is not genuine propitiation but magic, that is, the deity can be manipulated by human actions.”[70]
“I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” The use of the word “for” (kî) implies that God sent the flood because of human sinfulness, but he will also never send the flood because of human sinfulness. What does this mean? The term “for” (kî) can be “concessive,” rather than causal. This would render this word as “although” or “even though.”[71]
God’s people often built altars after great acts of God’s rescue (Ex. 24:4-18). This was a way to thank God and give him the respect he deserves. This also sets the stage for making a covenant with God.
Questions for Reflection
Regarding this chapter, Peter writes, “God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water” (1 Pet. 3:20). He later states that the Ark is a symbol for Christian baptism, protecting the believer from judgment.[72] In what ways is the Flood account similar to our salvation in Christ? In what ways is this account different?
Peter called Noah “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5). This means that Noah was preaching to his contemporaries when he was building the Ark. Sadly, no one listened. What do you think Noah’s neighbors were saying while he was preaching to them about the coming Flood? (Remember, Noah was building this massive barge in the middle of the desert.)
Application
We know that Noah rejected his preaching because no one entered the Ark. In another sense, we don’t know what they said because it isn’t recorded. Later Jewish traditions stated that the people “sneered at [Noah], each one, calling him demented, a man gone mad” (Sibylline Oracles 1.171-73).[73] Josephus states that the people were so menacing that Noah “was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land” (Antiquities 1.74). There’s no way that these traditions are historical. However, they have a certain amount of plausibility if we place ourselves in Noah’s shoes.
Did Noah wrestle with trusting God throughout this entire building project? After all, he heard the command decades earlier. In his old age, he might’ve asked himself, “Did I really hear that right? Did God really want me to build this barge? Or am I going senile in my old age?”
Whatever the case, Noah did what God told him. And he looked like a fool. That is, until the first drops of rain started to patter on the roof of the Ark. In the same way, people in our culture think it’s odd for us to prioritize our adult lives to the cause of Christ. However, moments after Jesus returns, we will have no regrets whatsoever. This is one reason why Jesus compares his Second Coming to the Flood (Mt. 24:37).
The text never tells us how Noah felt seeing humanity wiped out like this. This must’ve been somewhat harrowing to witness. At the same time, these people were only engaging in evil continually (Gen. 6:5), and they refused to listen to Noah’s message of righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5).
Genesis 9 (After the Flood)
This is a scene of a recreation. Just like God’s creation in the Garden, these humans are to be “fruitful and multiply” (vv.1, 7), and they are still made in “the image of God” (v.6). However, noticeable changes occur. The rule and reign of humans over the animals will be one of “fear” and “terror” (v.2), and murder will fill the Earth (v.6).
(9:1) Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”
“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” This harkens back to the Creation account (Gen. 1:28), showing that this is a recreation. He repeats the original command to Adam: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28).
“God blessed Noah and his sons.” God chooses to bless these men—even though he knew that Noah would get drunk, and Ham would dishonor his father. God blesses us even when he knows we will later sin, even in disgraceful ways.
In the Atrahasis Epic, the reason for the Flood is overpopulation. Not so with the biblical account. Here, God says, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” This implies that Genesis “looks like a conscious rejection of the Atrahasis Epic.”[74]
(9:2) The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every animal of the earth and on every bird of the sky; on everything that crawls on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea. They are handed over to you.
Creation knows that humans are the apex predator. Before, the animals freely came to Noah on the Ark (surely through miraculous means). But now, they are going to flee from him and his family into the wild.
(9:3) Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.
Were people vegetarians before this time? (see comments on Gen. 1:29-30) Perhaps. But this doesn’t affirm that humans could only eat vegetables. To assert this would commit the “negative inference fallacy.”[75] Just because God gave plant life for food, this does not imply that this was the only food given. At the very least, the text never asserts this. Perhaps humans were indeed vegetarians up until this point.
What about animal carnivory? YECs state that this shows that animals weren’t permitted to eat one another until after the Flood. We disagree. This provision was given to humans—not animals. Moreover, no sort of restriction was ever lifted on the diet of animals. This implies that animal predation was occurring during this time. Finally, it would be quite odd in a post-Fall world if humans could kill, but lions, tigers, and bears couldn’t do so.
(9:4) But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Why couldn’t the people eat animals with blood inside it? The blood of an animal symbolized its life. Thus, when the blood drained from an animal, the creature ceased moving and was dead. Thus, God outlawed the eating of blood (Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 19:26; Deut. 12:16-24; 1 Sam. 14:32-34), because blood was a symbol for atonement: “The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement” (Lev. 17:11).
(9:5) I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person.
God shows emphasis with regard to human life by repeating three times that he will require our “lifeblood” for murder.
(9:6-7) Whoever sheds human blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made mankind. 7 As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”
The vigilantes in the movie The Boondock Saints (1999) quote this line of Scripture (in case anyone was wondering…).
Does this passage support the notion of capital punishment? In our view, this seems like a universally binding passage at least to some degree. After all, the reason given is the fact that humans are made in the “image of God,” which is obviously still universally true today. However, this is definitely disputed and open for debate. See our earlier article, “Capital Punishment.”
The Noahic Covenant
(9:8-17) Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying, 9 “Now behold, I Myself am establishing My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the livestock, and every animal of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, every animal of the earth. 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations; 13 I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall serve as a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall come about, when I make a cloud appear over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the rainbow is in the cloud, then I will look at it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
God makes a covenant with Noah never to flood the Earth again.
(Gen. 9:13) Does this passage imply that rainbows began during the time of Noah? No. God began to use the rainbow as a sign at this time, but this doesn’t mean that rainbows began to exist at this time. In the same way, while a wedding ring might sit in a shop for ten years, it only becomes a symbol of commitment the day that it is exchanged with a spouse. Similarly, rainbows have existed for eons; however, they were appropriated as a sign of God’s loyalty only after the Flood.[76] The same is true for the “sign” of the Sabbath (Ex. 31:13, 17), circumcision (Gen. 17:11), and the wine of the New Covenant (Lk. 22:20). Waltke writes, “The [rain]bow and the signs of other biblical covenants consecrate already common events and invest them with new and sacred significance.”[77]
Why did God pick the rainbow as his sign for peace? Similar to English, the Hebrew word for “bow” (as in “rainbow”) was the same word for “bow” (as in “bow and arrow”). In ancient Near Eastern culture, a bow (qešet) had great significance. For instance, if the bow was pointed with its strings down, it was a sign of peace—much like holstering a firearm.[78] In the ancient Near East, “stars in the shape of a bow were associated with the hostility of the gods. Here the warrior’s bow is hung up, pointed away from the earth.”[79] This may have been why God picked this as a symbol for the people. He was communicating divine peace over the Earth. Wenham[80] rejects this weapon imagery, but he doesn’t really offer a refutation as to why he rejects it.
Noah gets naked
(9:18) Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan.
“Ham was the father of Canaan.” The Canaanites later took possession of the land of Israel, and they were massively depraved. It makes sense that Moses wants to show that they came from Ham—their depraved ancestor.
(9:19) These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.
The nations of the world came from these three men. Chapter 10 unpacks these nations in particular.
(9:20) Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
A significant amount of time must have passed—at least long enough to plant crops and ferment wine. Why was this Noah’s first reaction after coming off of the Ark? This all stems back to the mission of recreation.
(9:21) He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.
Sailhamer[81] sees a literary parallel between Adam and Noah: Both ate the fruit, both were naked, and both sinned. Their “enjoyment of God’s good gifts could not be sustained.” Later, he sees a parallel with Shem and Japheth covering the nakedness of Noah—just like God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21).
Why does Noah get naked? The imagery appears similar to the drunken episodes in the days of Habakkuk: “Woe to you who make your neighbors drink, who mix in your venom even to make them drunk so as to look on their nakedness!” (Hab. 2:15) Noah’s drunken nakedness is an act of shame (Gen. 3:7, 21). Perhaps Moses “is simply saying that too much wine reduces a normally rational being to a buffoon.”[82]
(9:22-25) Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it on both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.”
(Gen. 9:21-25) Did Ham rape Noah? No. The straightforward reading states that Ham was mocking his father’s nakedness. Matthews comments that “nakedness was shameful in Hebrew culture.”[83] Furthermore, ancient cultures viewed respect for one’s parents much higher than we do today (Ex. 20:12; 21:15, 17; Deut. 21:18-21; 27:16). So, Ham’s act would’ve been tantamount to the public humiliation of his father.
However, this episode may have imprinted perverse sexual actions on Ham. Waltke rejects the view that Ham sexually assaulted Noah. However, he writes, “Noah’s leaven of exposing himself spreads to Ham’s homosexual, parent-dishonoring voyeurism and will sour fully into Canaan’s rampant sexual perversions so that the land will vomit them out (see Lev. 18:24-30; Deut. 12:29-32).”[84] This is mere speculation. Matthews takes the more moderate view that “the role of Ham has been compared to the serpent who was instrumental in the discovery of Adam’s nakedness (3:6, 11-13) and who was cursed for the deed (3:14).”[85] This would further fit the theme that Noah is a “second Adam.”
How could Noah curse Canaan for the sin of his father? (Deut. 24:16; Ezek. 18) Matthew states, “Because of this unity of father-son, the character of the father is anticipated in the deeds of the sons. Hebrew theology recognized that due to parental influence future generations usually committed the same acts as their fathers whether for ill or good.”[86] The Canaanites performed even worse sins that Ham (Lev. 18:3-30). Furthermore, “Noah’s words held no magical powers that destined the fates of future generations. His appeal was to God, whose will alone counted for what would become of the nations.”[87]
“Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants He shall be to his brothers.” This passage was used (and is still used!) to promote racism and slavery. Racist white slave owners exploited this passage to claim that dark-skinned people deserved to be slaves. However, the reason for the Canaanite slavery is because of their deeply immoral actions—not their ethnicity (see “What about the Canaanite Genocide?”).[88] Of course, Rahab and her family are an exception because of their actions—not their ethnicity.
Conspiratorial white racists claimed that “Ham” refers to black people. This is false. The closest we can come to this association is by attributing the word to the “native term for Egypt, ‘Keme,’ which meant ‘the black land’ in reference to the soil of Egypt.”[89] However, even if we took this etymology as accurate, it would still only refer to the soil of Egypt—not to human beings made in the image of God. Moreover, in Hebrew, the word can simply mean “warm” or “hot.” Therefore, this bizarre racist reading of the text is unfounded. Finally, Ham is supposed to be a servant to his brother Shem, who later became the Semites (“Shemites”). How does this fit the thinking of anti-Semitic members of the KKK? In their view, people of color should be slaves of white people—not Jewish people.
(9:26-27) He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he live in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant.”
(Gen. 9:26-27) Does this predict that the Messiah would come from the Semitic people (i.e. the descendants of Shem)? The text alludes to God being with the line of Shem, and this could include the Messiah. However, this doesn’t mean that this is a direct prophecy of the Messiah. To begin, Jewish interpreters understood that God would be the subject who would reside with Shem. One ancient Jewish commentary states, “He shall make his Shekinah to dwell in the tabernacles of Shem” (Targum Onkelos). Other ancient Jewish sources concur, “God shall dwell” (Jubilees 7:12, 19; cf. Genesis Rabbah 36.8, Targum Neofiti).[90] One post-biblical source states, “Even though God enlarges Japheth, the Shekinah rests upon the tents of Shem” (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 10a).[91]
Second, God is the subject of the previous clause. Kaiser notes, “Hebrew language presumes that the subject of a previous clause will carry over to the next one when no other subject is interjected.”[92] Grammatically, therefore, we should favor the interpretation that God was promising to dwell with Shem.[93]
Third, this prediction was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, dwelling among us. Later in history, God did “dwell” in the camps of Israel (Ex. 25:8; 29:45; Lev. 16:16; Num. 35:34). Ultimately, however, the Temple was replaced by God dwelling in human flesh through Jesus. John writes, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…” (Jn. 1:14). Literally, the Greek reads, “He built his tent among us.”
(9:28-29) Noah lived 350 years after the flood. 29 So all the days of Noah were 950 years, and he died.
Noah was 600 years old when the Flood arrived, and he lived another 350 years after the Flood. This closes the genealogy that was begun in chapter 5.
Questions for Reflection
Most commentators see Noah as a “second Adam.” That is, God was starting over through Noah, and Noah serves as the person who recreates what Adam lost. What similarities do you see with Adam and Noah? What differences do you see between the two?
Read 8:20-22. What is the significance of this altar to God? Why did Noah build it?
Read 9:5-6. Some interpreters hold that this makes the death penalty binding for today. What arguments could you offer in favor of this view? What arguments could you offer against this interpretation? What practical problems could we face if we held to capital punishment for each and every case of murder?
Read 9:20-21. How could Noah be considered a righteous man (Gen. 6:9) but also get drunk and naked?
Read verse 25. Why was Canaan cursed for the sin of his father Ham?
[1] Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997), 83-84.
[2] 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1, LXX, Philo, On the Giants 2:358, Josephus, Antiquities 1.31, Testament of Reuben 5:6; DSS, 1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17-19. Cited in Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 139.
[3] J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p.256. Cited in VanGemeren, p.345.
[4] Josephus, Antiquities, 1.73.
[5] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 140.
[6] Willem VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?)” Westminster Theological Journal, 43 (1981).
[7] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 76.
[8] The Septuagint translation renders Genesis 6:2 as “the angels of God” (Codex Alexandrinus).
[9] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), pp.125-126.
[10] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.118.
[11] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 263.
[12] Derek Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), p.90.
[13] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 140.
[14] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 144.
[15] Walter Kaiser, More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 40.
[16] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 343.
[17] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 80.
[18] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 133.
[19] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 277.
[20] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 278.
[21] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 170.
[22] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 94.
[23] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 171.
[24] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 135.
[25] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 94.
[26] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 282.
[27] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 135.
[28] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 83.
[29] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 84.
[30] Global theorist Gleason Archer writes, “In explanation of this assertion, it needs to be pointed out that the Hebrew ˒ereṣ, translated consistently as ‘earth’ in our English Bibles, is also the word used for ‘land’ (e.g., the land of Israel, the land of Egypt). There is another term, tēbēl, which means the whole expanse of the earth, or the world as a whole. Nowhere does tēbēl occur in this account, but only ˒ereṣ, in all the statements which sound quite universal in the English Bible (e.g., 7:4, 10, 17, 18, 19). Thus, Gen. 6:17c can be rendered: ‘Everything that is in the land shall die.’” Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998), 216.
[31] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 136.
[32] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 137.
[33] Henry Morris and John Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961), 70.
[34] Hermann Gunkel, Genesis Übersetzt und Erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 137. Cited in Sailhamer, Genesis p. 86.
[35] John Skinner 1851-1925, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribner, 1910), 147.
[36] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 87.
[37] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 289.
[38] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 286.
[39] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 287.
[40] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 85.
[41] See footnote. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 96.
[42] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 287.
[43] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 374.
[44] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 374.
[45] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 97.
[46] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 139.
[47] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 376.
[48] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 378.
[49] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 182.
[50] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 139.
[51] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 378.
[52] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 2. Chicago: Moody, 1980. 800, 909, 923.
[53] Emphasis mine. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), 145.
[54] John Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 324.
[55] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 98.
[56] Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961), 267ff.
[57] John Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 325.
[58] Bruce K. Waltke, “517 הרר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 224.
[59] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 298.
[60] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 140.
[61] Sailhamer is citing Wenham, Genesis p.184. John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 90.
[62] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 125-126.
[63] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), 147.
[64] Rich Deem “The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must Be Local.”
[65] Emphasis mine. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), 146.
[66] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 141.
[67] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 304.
[68] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 304.
[69] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 308-309.
[70] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 309.
[71] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 310.
[72] To be clear, Jesus is the Ark that saves us from the judgment of God foreshadowed in the Flood waters. To repeat, in the type, the waters of the flood do not represent baptism. Rather, they represent judgment. The unbelievers were “baptized” in the waters of the Flood! Rather, our spiritual identification with Jesus and being “baptized” into Jesus is paralleled by Noah being “baptized” into the Ark.
[73] Cited in K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 357.
[74] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 313.
[75] D.A. Carson defines the negative inference fallacy in this way: “It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negative inference from that proposition is also true.” D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), p.101. Consider some examples of this fallacy:
(1) “All the basketball players were exercising at the gym. Therefore, no one else was exercising there.”
(2) “Jeff hates broccoli. Therefore, he likes every other kind of vegetable.”
(3) “Jesus gave an exception for divorce. Therefore, there are no other exceptions for divorce.”
These are all examples of the “negative inference fallacy,” and it does not logically follow. A way to avoid the fallacy is to change or add the word “only” to the major premise of the argument or proposition (i.e. “Only the basketball players…”).
[76] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 411.
[77] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 146.
[78] I am indebted to Dr. James Hoffmeier’s class on Old Testament from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School for this observation.
[79] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 146.
[80] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 196.
[81] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 95.
[82] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 322.
[83] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 419.
[84] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 149.
[85] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 418.
[86] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 421.
[87] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 422.
[88] Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 150.
[89] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 320.
[90] Cited in Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 326.
[91] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990).
[92] Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1995), 44.
[93] Hamilton objects to this grammatical argument by claiming that this doesn’t work in Genesis 15:6. True. However, looking to the nearest antecedent isn’t an inviolable rule; it is simply a standard hermeneutical principle. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 326.