GENESIS 6-7 THE FLOOD

I'll warn you at the start that I plan to talk all around the flood story without really dealing with any of the specific verses. There are three parts to my lesson: The first is to consider the curious events that open up Chapter 6, then some of the attacks that have been leveled at the flood story, and finally what the rest of the Bible has to say about Noah and the flood.

Genesis 6:1-4 Much of the understanding of any passage begins with considering the context– chapters preceding give Cain and Seth’s genealogies, chapters that follow deal with God punishing man for disobedience with the flood.

Or these particular verses may have nothing to do with their surroundings other than fitting into that 

chronological period. Three major possibilities:

Sons of                          Daughters

Elohim                          of Men                     Nephilim

a. Godly line of Seth     line of Cain              heroes

b. local tribal rulers         harems          princes, great men, aristocrats

c. Angels (sons of God) women                     giants

or demons (sons

of gods)

The First View, which is not as popular as it once was, uses the previous verses as the intended 

context.

One problem with this interpretation is the lack of any specific evidence linking the phrases “sons of 

God” and “daughters of men” with any particular genealogical line. According to this view, the sin  

being portrayed is the unequal yoking of believers with non-believers. The statement in v. 4 about the 

Nephilim being present today makes sense if the word just means heroes.

The genealogy of Seth's line is given in 5:1-6:8. To see why it is placed there, consider the overall plan of Genesis, which alternates between genealogies and narratives:

I. Narratives (1:1-4:26)

II. Genealogy of Chosen Line (5:1-6:8)

III. Narrative: The Flood (6:9-9:28)

IV. Genealogy of Chosen Line (10:1-31)

VI. Narrative: Tower of Babel (10:32-11:9)

VII. Genealogy of Chosen Line (11:10-26)

VIII. Narrative: Abraham (11:27-25:11)

IX. Genealogy of Divergent Line (25:12-18)

X. Narrative: Isaac/Jacob (25:19-35:29)

XI. Genealogy of Divergent Line (36:1-43)

                        XII. Narrative: Joseph (37:1-50:29)

From this overall pattern you can see that it is unlikely that mere mention of Seth's chosen line before 

the Flood has no more to do with that particular event than the continuation of that line in Section IV is 

somehow responsible for the Tower of Babel incident that follows it. Similarly, it is obvious that the 

non-chosen lines described in IX and XI have little to do directly with the narratives that follow them.

The Second View uses the verses that follow as the appropriate context.

“Sons of gods” is a term used in pagan cultures to denote warlords, princes or kings. Ancient rulers 

often claimed divine status. If so, then the earth is being partially punished for the sins of bigamy, 

forceful taking of women, and pride of its rulers. The offspring are also called gibborim, which means 

a person of mighty valor or wealth. Nimrod was called a gibbor in Genesis 10:8, and he was obviously 

just a human king or ruler.

The Third View

Pro:

Sons of God = angels in Job 1:6 & 2:1, Ps. 29:1 and other OT passages.

It literally reads “sons of gods” (elohim) so it may refer to demons (not that different from angels led

by Satan). I Enoch and Jubilees took this view and elaborated on the angels' sin. LXX translated “sons

of God” as “angels.” This view has been held by most commentators up to the present time.

Con:

Some reject this explanation as being too bizarre and too much like Greek and Roman fables where

gods fall in love with women and have children that are demigods. We want a more “rational”

explanation.

Mark 12:25 (Matthew 22:30) states that angels do not marry. But this is the situation in heaven and not

necessarily on earth, and refers to present and future, but not necessarily to times past.

 

The main sin here is the unnatural coupling of angels with women. But why would mankind be

punished for the angels' sins? It doesn't seem to fit the following context, and would only make sense

if the earth was overrun with demon-possessed mankind or mankind that was overly influenced to sin

by the straying angels. However, others point out that animals and plants were also punished in the

flood even though they were innocent.

Genesis 6:4 The phrase “ and afterward” would seem to argue against this view since a mixed breed

race would have been wiped out in the flood unless they were pretty good swimmers. This verse alone

might provide good evidence for belief in a limited flood rather than a universal one. Parenthetically,

attempts to equate the Nephilim with Neanderthal men are sadly misguided.

But (a) the order of the verses makes it not really clear that the Nephilim were actually the offspring

being talked about. (b) Also, it may only mean that the name lived on to be applied to any large or

powerful men. Numbers 13:32-33 is only other reference to Nephilim, where it apparently referred to

people of large stature. However, we should probably discount the evidence of the spies as negative

hyperbole (“men as grasshoppers”). (c) A third possibility is that it referred to the fallen angels

themselves since the root meaning to Nephilim is “to fall.”

 

New Testament Evidence

2 Peter 2:4 alludes to angels who sinned, but does not point out the nature of their sin. It could possibly

be associated with the war in heaven between loyal angels and angels who followed Satan (as in

Revelation), and have nothing to do with Genesis 6.

Jude 6 seems to be more applicable: “And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their

proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day.” It

has similarities to a passage in I Enoch referring to Genesis 6.  

 

The angels are said to have left their proper place. This could mean that they attempted to take over

God's place in heaven, or that they left heaven to go live on earth. 

 

Noah and the Flood

This story has suffered attack from at least three different directions. The first is from a scientific

viewpoint. Everybody wants to know how Noah could have collected all the animals and fit them into

the ark, how did he feed them and clean out their cages, why it hadn't rained up to that time in history,

where did all the water come from and where did it go, etc. We will see that the rest of the Bible

doesn't seem to be much concerned with these details so I am not going to try to deal with them today.

Also, the common proposal of a localized flood in the Middle East rather than a universal one helps to

explain many of the difficulties, and there is geological evidence to support it. I should point out that

when the word “world” is used in the OT and NT, it often means the inhabited world known to the

authors. One example is Paul's comment in Romans 1:8 that their faith was proclaimed throughout the

world. I certainly don't support the idea of flood geology that attempts to explain everything from the

earth being only 6000 years old to the order of the fossil record in various geological strata to the

creation of the Grand Canyon as all arising from the flood.

The second attack comes from those who point out the similarities between the Genesis account and

various pagan myths dating from the 2^nd millennium BC. The most famous of these is the Gilgamesh

Epic and a variation called the Atrahasis Epic. There certainly are similarities: a god decides to

destroy mankind through a flood. However, one man builds a ship for himself, family and cattle so that

they can survive. It rains for 7 days and 7 nights and the ship ends up stranded on top of a mountain

when the waters recede. The man gives an fragrant offering to the gods, and they decide never to

destroy mankind again.

 

Comments: It is not obvious in which direction the borrowing took place. And there may not have been

any borrowing at all. If there was a horrendous flood in ancient times in the Middle East, it is

understandable that there would be a remembrance of the event in several cultures.

The differences in the two accounts are greater than their similarities, especially when you look at the

theology behind the two traditions. The pagan account reflects polytheistic beliefs in which the gods

act against one another in a petty manner. The god causing the flood does so because he has insomnia

from all the noise humans are making on earth. He doesn't want to preserve any humans, but someone

else tips off the hero as to the god's plans. The hero builds a ship, not an ark, and recruits sailors to

help sail it so that it is man's ingenuity and skill than saves him. The other gods get worried when they

look at how extensive the flood is and get mad at the god for causing it. By the time that the hero sets

foot on dry land again and gives up an offering to the gods, they are almost completely starved because

they live on the fragrant odor of man's sacrifices. The gods then institute various birth control

techniques to insure that man will never again overpopulate the world. So, as in most pagan myths, it

is a noble man who is the hero of the story while the gods are shown up for the needy, quarreling, petty

personalities that they are.

Compare this with the biblical account where it is mankind's sin that causes God to act to cleanse the

earth, not out of some selfish motive. And note the care God takes to give Noah instructions, the years

he waits before the flood to allow people to repent, the fact that God is grieved over the situation, and

the way God Himself closes the door of the ark after everyone is inside. And finally, as we shall see in

the next lesson, God's grace extended to mankind after the flood.

The third attack on the Flood Story comes from liberal scholars who feel that there were two competing

accounts of the Flood and the editors of Genesis didn't know which one was the true story so they

included both. This is similar to the liberal belief regarding the creation story: Genesis 1 was written

by one hand and Genesis 2 is a conflicting story told by some other author. The difference here is that

it isn't proposed that the editors presented both stories side by side in separate chapters; instead they

combined the stories as best they could even with all their supposed inconsistencies, with a verse or

two from one source followed by a verse or two from the second story, etc. Sort of like the shuffling of

two packs of cards.

Comments: As with the creation account, the supposed differences in the two hypothetical accounts

tend to disappear when you look at them more carefully. 7 pairs of clean animals and birds in Genesis

7:2-3, but only one pair in verses 8-9 – you need one pair of each type for breeding purposes, but you

need additional clean animals for sacrificial purposes. Or 40 days vs. 150 days for the flood – the first

for actual rain, and the rest for rising flood waters. When scholars attempt to reconstruct the original

two accounts by picking out their respective verses, they are left with two accounts that have huge

gaps in them and in which some of the supposed contradictions still exist. Finally, this approach

ignores the present, highly structured account that we have in Genesis. It all holds together as narrative

and as great literature.

There are a number of allusions to the general image of a flood found throughout the Bible from

Genesis to Revelation. Most of them fall into one of two categories: (1) a symbol of the primeval

chaos at the start of creation, which God conquered and (2) an overwhelming force of destruction.

Psalm 29:10 contains both of these themes. “The LORD sits enthroned over/since the flood; the LORD

sits enthroned as king forever.” NRSV note: God reigns over the defeated forces of chaos and He has

been reigning since the Flood.

Isaiah 54:9-10 “This is like the days of Noah to me: Just as I swore that the waters of Noah would

never again go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke

you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart

from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on

you.” This is a reference to the end of the Flood story where God placed his bow in the sky.

Comparing the events of the Exile to the flood on all mankind, God will never again abandon his

people.

Ezekiel 14:14 “Even if Noah, Daniel and Job, these three were in [a land], they would save only their

own lives by their righteousness, says the Lord God.” (v. 14) Verse 20 makes it very specific by

stating that they wouldn't even save their sons and daughters by their own righteousness, an allusion

to both (1) the destruction of Sodom where the righteousness of Lot saved only his own family but was

not enough to save the whole city, and (2) Gen. 7:1: “Then the LORD said to Noah, 'Go into the ark,

you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation,'”

Matthew 24:37-39 “For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in

those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the

day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away; so too

will be the coming of the Son of Man.” There is a gross misinterpretation of the first sentence which

totally ignores the rest of the passage, namely that the days of Noah were characterized by widespread

immorality – which we see all around us. Therefore the time will be any day now. I do believe in the

immanence of the Second Coming, but not for that particular reason. Even with all the warnings by

Jesus saying that no one, including himself, knew even the season of the Second Coming, people can't

help speculating.

 

Hebrews 11:7 “By faith Noah, warned by God about events as yet unseen, respected the warning and

built an ark to save his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir to the

righteousness that is in accordance with faith.” His righteousness was like that of Abraham, based on

faith, not works of the law. But notice that, as James will point out, this faith was lived out and

demonstrated by his actions.

And then there is perhaps the most difficult passage in the New Testament: I Peter 3:18-21 “For Christ

also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He

was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a

proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in

the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved

through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you – not as a removal of dirt from the

body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

“Baptism saves”: At least ten other NT passages say basically the same thing. This appears to be a very

well attested doctrine, but it is usually denied or ignored in Protestant circles. It can best be explained

by the fact that in New Testament times baptism followed directly after belief and confession of faith, a

practice that is rare today. The exhaustive study Baptism in the New Testament by the well-respected

Baptist scholar G. R. Beasley-Murray is an excellent resource for this subject.

2 Peter 2:5 says much the same thing as the I Peter passage but adds the phrase “herald/preacher of

righteousness” to describe Noah. The preachers I grew up listening to always interpreting this as

stating that Noah was a preacher much like themselves. They coupled this interpretation with the

roughly calculated 120 years of grace before God actually destroyed the earth to say that at least they

weren't as unsuccessful as Noah in his speaking ministry. But the OT says nothing about a speaking

ministry for Noah. So some commentators feel that it is more likely that it was through the example of

his own righteous life that he “preached” to others.

2 Peter 3: Lastly, we come to this interesting chapter where there are possible implications of the limited flood idea on our understanding of any future destruction of the earth, since the two are apparently equated in 2 Peter 3. That camp calling itself full (or consistent) preterists argues that the flood did not “destroy” the earth since it was still intact when the waters subsided. Therefore the future destruction of the earth mentioned in v. 7 must also be of a limited scope, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. If one additionally believes in the local flood theory, then that might give even more credence to this argument.

However, whether the flood was local or universal, in neither case does the full preterist argument stand up. In the first place, the language used by Peter in verse 10 goes way beyond the type of destruction that occurred in the flood and extends seemingly to the atomic composition of matter itself. Also it is a great mistake to say that Peter is primarily comparing the scope of the two destructions. Instead, he is mainly arguing in terms of two other comparisons:

1. Peter first speaks to God's ability to create the earth in the first place (v. 5) and therefore His ability to destroy it at any time if He wishes (v. 7a). The fact that these two ideas are related and that both refer to the physical earth is seen in the word erets used in both verses. This word similarly appears in verses 10 and 13, with the basic meaning again of the material earth.

2. Next Peter speaks to God's reason for destruction. He compares the perishing of the evil people and culture at the time of the flood (expressed through the word kosmos, or world system) in verse 6 with the final “judgment and destruction of the godless in 7b.” Thus, there is this sort of simple parallelism:

God's ability to destroy (v. 5)

        Impact on the sinful (v. 6)

God's ability to destroy (v. 7a)

        Impact on the sinful (v. 7b)