Turn in your Bibles to Genesis
chapter 6. Genesis chapter 6. You may leave tonight with more
questions than answers, at least with reference to the first few
verses. But I do want to read beginning
in Genesis 6 at verse 1. Now, it came to pass when men
began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were
born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men,
that they were beautiful. And they took wives for themselves
of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, my spirit
shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh, yet his
day shall be 120 years. There were giants on the earth
in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into
the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those
were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the
Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,
and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he
had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.
So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from
the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and
birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah
found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of
Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect
in his generations. Noah walked with God, and Noah
begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The earth also was
corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So
God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt, for all
flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to
Noah, the end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth
is filled with violence through them. And behold, I will destroy
them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher
wood. Make rooms in the ark and cover
it inside and outside with pitch. And this is how you shall make
it. The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, its width 50 cubits,
and its height 30 cubits. You shall make a window for the
ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above, and set
the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower,
second, and third decks. And behold, I myself am bringing
floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all
flesh in which is the breath of life. Everything that is on
the earth shall die. But I will establish My covenant
with you, and you shall go into the ark, you, your sons, your
wife, and your sons' wives with you. And of every living thing,
of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark,
to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.
of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind,
and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind. Two
of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. And you shall
take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall
gather it to yourself, and it shall be food for you and for
them. Thus Noah did according to all that God commanded him,
so he did. Amen. Well, we see the flood
narrative here beginning. We find conditions before the
flood at the beginning of chapter 6, and this does provide the
rationale for the judgment of God. Verse 5, the Lord saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth. It's repeated in
verses 11 and 12, the earth also was corrupt before God. and the
earth was filled with violence, it was corrupt." And that, again,
provides the rationale for the judgment of God in terms of the
flood that he sent upon all men everywhere except, of course,
Noah and his family. Well, tonight we're going to
look at just the first eight verses, and I want to look first
at the marriages of sons of God and daughters of men in verses
1 to 4, and then secondly, the wickedness of man on the earth
in verses 5 to 8. Now, last week I had introduced
or had mentioned that the first four verses of Genesis chapter
6 are very difficult in terms of the history of interpretation.
There are three views on who these sons of God are. And as
I said, you may have more questions tonight than you have answers,
but I do hope to give you the three positions. and at least
let you know the one that I favor, the one that I think is going
on in this passage. But even then, it's held to tentatively. It would be foolish for anybody
to die on their interpretation of the sons of God, in my estimation. I think it's certainly something
to die for with reference to the Trinity, with reference to
the hypostatic union, with reference to the doctrine of justification
by faith. But if any man wants to die on
his interpretation of the sons of God in Genesis 6, as far as
I'm concerned, he can have at it, because I'm not going to
join him. But let's look at this. Notice the situation in verses
1 and 2, the multiplication of people. Verse 1, it came to pass,
when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters
were born to them. This is an outflowing of what
God commanded, God specified in Genesis chapter 1, 26 and
27. We see it reiterated in chapter
5, verses 2 and 3. It was the purpose of God for
man to fill the earth, to multiply and fill the earth. And then
notice we see these marriages contracted in verse 2, that the
sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful,
and they took wives for themselves, of all whom they chose. Now one
man, one commentator, and he's the minority, certainly among
the guys that I read, he connects this section with the previous
section and essentially says that it's not a description of
wickedness on the land or on the earth prior to the flood,
but rather it's just a report of things that were. We come
out of these genealogies, we have a lot of men, we have a
lot of women, and so we have a lot of marriages contracted.
I think, however, that it rather does fit as a precursor to the
flood, because God does express His grief, God expresses His
disdain or displeasure with conditions as they were at that particular
time. But with reference to the sons
of God, who are they? Verse 2, that the sons of God
saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful and they
took wives for themselves of all. whom they chose." Now, probably
the oldest interpretation says that the sons of God are angels. The sons of God are angelic beings
that saw the daughters of men and went into them, and then
contracted marriages with them. Now, obviously, there are texts
that would suggest that this is not the best interpretation. Now, that angels are referred
to as sons of God, Job 1.6 makes clear that they are. So, each
of the three positions, at least grammatically, is sustainable. So, it's not the case that we
can exclude any of these interpretations based on the grammar of the passage,
because we see this kind of usage elsewhere. sons of God are referred,
or angels rather, are referred to as sons of God. However, we
have Matthew 22, 30, where Jesus highlights what the angels are
like in terms of copulation. He says, for in the resurrection
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the
angels of God in heaven. So we infer that the angels of
God in heaven do not marry, nor are they given in marriage. In
other words, they don't propagate or they don't grow in number
through copulation or through the means of propagation that
is appropriate to human beings. John Calvin commented on this
interpretation by saying this, He said, that ancient figment
concerning the intercourse of angels with women is abundantly
refuted by its own absurdity. And it is surprising that learned
men should formally have been fascinated by raving so gross
and prodigious. So obviously, he excludes that
particular interpretation. But I quote Calvin there to quote
another modern commentator. Because Calvin says, that ancient
figment, you need to understand, this wasn't hatched yesterday.
This is the oldest interpretation of this particular passage. Gordon
Wenham, in his commentary, writes, the angel interpretation is at
once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators.
It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis, the Septuagint,
Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New Testament, 2 Peter 2
and Jude 6, and the earliest Christian writers, for example,
Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
also take this line. So again, we don't hold to that,
or I don't particularly, but if you do, you're not off the
reservation. You are still in the realm of
Christian orthodoxy. In fact, I think John MacArthur's
study Bible favors that particular interpretation. So not again
to say that therefore it's true, but just to show you that what
appears at least at the outset of being a bit of an outlandish
interpretation is held to by a whole host of people within
the context of the church. Secondly, the sons of God are
superior men, such as kings or other rulers, men that were basically
tyrannical, men that functioned in a despotic sort of a way. Now, Waltke quotes Klein. I simply didn't have the article
written by Meredith Klein on this particular interpretation.
I have a commentary by Klein, but he developed this view later
after doing the commentary. But he argues this way. This
is Klein. These tyrants, a continuation
of the cursed line of Cain, were supposed to administer justice,
but instead they claimed for themselves deity, violated the
divine order by forming royal harems, and perverted their mandate
to rule the earth under God. Their offspring were the Nephilim
heroes. Again, that's a legitimate interpretation
of the passage. It seems to me to take a few
liberties with what the text actually says, but nevertheless,
that is a view. The sons of God were superior
men, royal men that functioned as tyrants and that functioned
in a way that was not conducive to the will and the mind of God. Waltke then goes on to say the
best solution is to combine the angelic interpretation with the
divine king view, essentially saying the tyrants were demon-possessed. So the sons of God were these
demon-possessed tyrants that went into the daughters of men
and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. Now,
the third interpretation, and this is the one that is favored
by the guys that I read, probably that's why I hold to it, having
learned it a long time ago. To me, it makes the best sense
in terms of the context. John Calvin held this view, John
Gill held this view, Matthew Poole held this view, Francis
Turretin as well. The sons of God are the godly
Sethites, and the daughters of men are ungodly Cainites. And I think, again, in the context,
we see the ungodly line of Cain rehearsed in Genesis chapter
4. We see the godly line of Seth
rehearsed in Genesis chapter 5, both of which are an illustration
of or an example of that principle in Genesis 3.15. Collectively,
the seed of the woman is going to crush the seed of the serpent. And we see that with the godly
Sethites and the ungodly Cainites. Now when we get to Genesis chapter
6, it has become such on the earth that even now the godly
Sethites have seen the ungodly Cainites, the daughters of men,
that they were beautiful and they took wives for themselves
of all whom they chose. So there's compromise even among
the godly Sethites, all except, of course, Noah, who found grace
in the eyes of the Lord. Now, as I said, there's no foolproof,
sort of definitive answer, but I suspect that, at least in my
mind, that makes better sense of this particular passage. Turretin
said the sons of God referred to are no other than the posterity
of Seth, who, on account of still retaining the pure worship of
God, are distinguished from the profane posterity of Cain or
the sons of men." So those are the three views. Angelic beings
that went into the daughters of men. The language there is
conspicuous. It is sexual in nature. They
went into, or later on rather, it speaks of that in verse 4,
and then the second being these superior men, these tyrannical
kings or other sorts of rulers, or rather the sons of Seth and
the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. Now, note
the choice of wives in verse 2. It says, "...the sons of God
saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and they
took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." Now, some
see in this rape or incest or fornication, but the language
doesn't suggest that. Either explicitly or implicitly,
it is the language of choosing wives. However, it is important
to notice something that is reflective of what happens in the Garden
of Eden. If you go back to Genesis 3 at
verse 6. Genesis 3 at verse 6. So when the woman saw that the
tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes,
and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit
and ate. it was good, and she took. She
saw it was good, and she took. And that's the same sort of language
that we find here in verse 2, which I think sort of rebukes
or rebuffs that idea that Genesis 6, 1-4 is simply an epilogue
to the genealogy rather than a precursor to the flood narrative. I think it's better to see this
as descriptive of something bad going on. So these sons of God
saw, they saw that it was good, and they took for themselves.
I don't think the language is accidental, but I think we're
supposed to remember what happens in the Garden of Eden as we see
men continue to duplicate that sort of sin. And then note the
divine response in verse 3. And the Lord said, verse 3, my
spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed
flesh, yet his days shall be 120 years. I think it's this
particular verse that Wenham says every word in this verse
is debated. because of the difference in
terms of interpretation with reference to verse 3. The Lord
said, My spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed
flesh, actually this following part, yet his days shall be 120
years. The way that I understand this
is that the Lord, by His Spirit, gave life to man. We see that
in the creation account in Genesis chapter 1. We see that as well
in Psalm 104. Now, the Spirit who gave life
to man will not strive with him forever in terms of his recurring
rebellion against God. Remember, this is a precursor
to the flood narrative, and it's highlighting the reality that
God's long suffering ultimately does run out. In other words,
there is a divine long-suffering, but there's also a time when
sinners fill up the measure of their guilt and God will visit
judgment upon them in this context, specifically with reference to
the flood. Now, when he says, yet his days
shall be 120 years, there's two different ways to interpret that.
See why I said this was going to be a difficult passage? Because
it's not the kind of passage that says that Josh shall live
by faith. It's the kind of passage that
is, in one sense, a bit obscure. I mean, we're met with concepts
in this particular few verses that are not really duplicated
or replicated elsewhere in the Bible. Many would just write
it off as myth. They would write it off as consistent
with Greek mythology, with other sort of ancient Near Eastern
mythologies where gods did copulate with humans and that the Bible
somehow borrowed that and included it in its narrative. I don't
believe that at all. I just simply think that I don't
know what's going on as well as I might know in Romans 3.
But notice, when it says, yet his days shall be 120 years,
the two ways to approach this is, first of all, this specifies
the amount of time that man will live. He will not exceed 120
years. That's going to be basically
the cap. Now, that interpretation has
puzzled commentators because, of course, after the flood, men
do live more than 120 years. One has well argued, however,
that the last man that the Pentateuch mentions is Moses, and he lived
to be 120 years. So I don't think there's anything
wrong with that particular interpretation. Secondly, or another alternate
view, is that this was the amount of time between this proclamation
and the flood. In other words, there's going
to be this period of what Peter calls, and I think 1 Peter 3.20
helps to seal the deal, at least in terms of the concept of this
interpretation, that after the proclamation concerning the coming
destruction, there was this period of time where Noah, who was a
preacher of righteousness, called upon the sinners of his day to
repent and forsake and find mercy in and through the Lord Jesus
Christ. Now, some will say, but it wasn't 120 years. So you got
a bit of a problem there. You got a 20 year lag time in
terms of the actual chronology, but there are ways to explain
that in terms of when the proclamation is given. Now that everybody
is thoroughly confused, let me just try and make this simple. It is a tough passage. It is
a hard passage in terms of coming to absolute conviction with reference
to, yeah, this means this, and this means that. Add to that
verse four. There were giants on the earth
in those days and also afterward when the sons of God came into
the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those
were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. It's almost
as if Moses says, if you didn't have enough struggles with verses
one to three, I just want to tell you that there were giants
in the earth in those days and afterward. Oh, great, okay. Now these are what's called the
Nephilim. There are persons that sort of
make their life... life's work on explaining the
Nephilim. Now, the reference to giants
on the earth in those days and also afterward probably appeals
or applies to Numbers 13.33. The only other place where the
Nephilim are mentioned, they're the sons of Anak, they were in
fact giants, men of renown, men who were mighty men, warriors,
that sort of thing. The word Nephilim is probably
related to fall or fallen. That's why the New King James
has in the margin, Nephilim, fallen or mighty ones. Again, the very term itself is
hard. to nail down with absolute certainty. But all that to say, there were
giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when
the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore
children to them." So, in the midst of what's ever going on
in chapter 6, verses 1 to 3, when these sons of God are going
into the daughters of men, there's also giants on the earth in those
days. Now when it says at the end of
verse four, those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. You can see where Klein got his
interpretation, that the children born of these sons of God and
daughters of men were the Nephilim. But I don't think the text demands
to be read that way. I think it's just a parenthetical
statement. There were giants at the time,
and those giants were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. So again, if anybody ever says,
well, the Bible speaks of giants, it does speak of giants. We know,
of course, that Goliath was a giant. There's nothing that should trouble
the people of God with reference to that sort of thing. Even if
we took the angelic interpretation, that shouldn't trouble the people
of God. We're not humanists. We're not
materialists. We believe in a sovereign. and
an omnipotent God. If we believe Genesis 1-1, then
everything post-Genesis 1-1 makes absolute sense. It's only persons
that doubt the validity of Genesis 1-1 that would ever doubt the
validity of miracles and the supernatural and spirit beings
and all that sort of thing. So there were giants on the earth
in those days, and those were the mighty men who were of old,
men of renown. Now let's move on secondly to
the wickedness of man on the earth. It is intriguing because
while verses 1 to 4 are a bit obscure and a little bit more
difficult to interpret, the rest is absolutely clear cut. The
rest is positively simple in comparison to interpret, because
it reports on what man is. It reports on who man is, and
based on our studies thus far in Genesis 1 to 5, it shouldn't
surprise us that when we get to Genesis chapter 6, and men
multiply in the earth, that sin multiplies right alongside of
them, or right along with them. Notice, in verses 5 to 8, we
see God's response to the wickedness of man. Verse 5, Then the Lord
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Now note that first part of verse
5, Then the Lord saw. That sort of reads in a way that
would be peculiar to a man, doesn't it? Then the Lord saw. Are there times when the Lord
doesn't see? Are there times when the Lord
turns his head and then sees something going on? Of course
not. God always knows everything that
he always knows. There's no change with God. There's
no variation with God. There's no new information with
God. There's no discovery with God. So when Moses says, then
the Lord saw, this idea of seeing supposes the idea of eyes. Isn't
the eye the gate by which we actually observe things? So if
we read that text, then the Lord saw as meaning that God had eyes. There was a time when He didn't
see, and then He did see. We would be reading it as if
God was Himself a creature or a man. So, what Moses is doing
here in verse 5 is using what's called an anthropomorphism. I don't want to lose anybody
tonight. I want you to get this. You may not know what the giants
or who the giants were. Well, you should. They were mighty
men who were of old and they were men of renown. So, you certainly
know who these giants were. But I really want you to get
what's going on in this next section. So, I think most of
us have either heard the word anthropomorphism or we at least
know the concept. Anthropomorphism is when a biblical
writer applies something that is true of the creature to God.
In other words, the scripture says that God has a mighty right
arm. The scripture says that Jesus
sits at the right hand of God. The scripture says the eyes of
Yahweh run to and fro throughout the earth. Now, we know that
God is spirit, right? Everybody's with me? God is spirit. Jesus defines God or Jesus describes
God in that terminology in John 4, 24. Now, a spirit doesn't
have eyes, a spirit doesn't have ears, a spirit doesn't have a
right arm. But what the author is doing is applying something
we can sink our teeth into to God so that we can understand
something about God. When the scripture says that
the eyes of Yahweh run to and fro throughout the whole earth,
we're supposed to understand that He sees everything, right?
When it speaks of His mighty right arm, we're supposed to
understand God's power, God's omnipotence, God's strength.
And so when we read in verse 5, then the Lord saw, the idea
here is that Moses is saying something about God in a way
that we can understand. It's not that God got new information. It's not that God discovered
something. It's not that God came to a place
that He wasn't the day before. But rather it is reporting to
us in what we would call the manner of men. It's the Scripture
speaking to us as men in the manner of men, in a way that
we can understand. Now note what he witnesses, or
what he sees. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness
of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And I think
that's a very expansive or exhaustive explanation of man's problem. It moves from the external to
the internal. Notice, he saw that the wickedness
of man was great in the earth. In other words, when God looks
upon the earth, he sees acts of wickedness. He sees the sons
of God going into the daughters of men. He sees the corruption
on the earth. He sees the violence of Lamech.
He sees the sorts of things that men engage in. But sin isn't
simply an externality. Sin isn't something only that
we commit But rather, it's essentially what we are. Not essentially
in terms of God made us that way, but it's our nature. It's who we are. And that's what verse 5 continues
with. It's not only that he saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, But he also saw
that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
In other words, God doesn't just see the wickedness and lawlessness
on the earth, but he also sees the wickedness and lawlessness
in the hearts of men. Sin isn't just an out-there thing. Sin is an in-here thing that
finds its way out there. This is a great text that supports
the doctrine of total depravity. We see that he not only engages
in wicked acts, but it comes from a wicked heart, and that
it comes from a wicked heart that's completely affected. Notice,
and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually. That's a pretty terrible report
concerning the condition of man. Now, I realize we don't like
to hear this, and I realize that we like to redefine it, and I
realize that we don't like to embrace the reality of it, but
that doesn't change facts. This is man's problem. This is the best explanation
for what is going on in the world around us. Yes, there is wickedness
of man that is great in the earth, but the more fundamental problem
is that every intent of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually. Now, this doesn't confine itself
to the pre-flood people. Rather, post-flood comments as
well, and the Bible comments post-flood on the depravity of
man also. It's not just a back then sort
of an issue, but it's also a now issue, and we need to appreciate
that, and we need to reckon with that. So the Lord saw the wickedness
of man, and then that brings us to this response of the Lord
in verse 6. And the Lord was sorry that he
had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.
Remember I just told you what an anthropomorphism is. I should
shut this off and ask everybody to rehearse what I just said.
It is applying to God a bodily feature of man. God's ears, God's
eyes, God's arm. This verse does that too. Notice in verse 6, he was grieved
in his heart. Well, if God is spirit, he doesn't
have a heart like you and I have a heart. You see, Moses is talking
to us in a way that we can understand. It really is good of God, isn't
it, to talk to us in a way that we can understand. Now, let's
think about anthropomorphism and let's add one more word that's
kind of like that. And that word is anthropopathism. I'd like everybody to repeat
that. No, I'm just kidding. It's a fun word to say. Anthropopathism. It really is fun. Anthropopathism. Now, if an anthropomorphism is
applying a human feature to God, Anthropopathism is applying a
human affection or an emotion to God. Is everybody with me?
So to say that God has ears, God has a heart, God has eyes,
God has feet, God has an arm, that is to do an anthropomorphism. Anthropopathism is to apply a
human emotion or an affection to God. Everybody with me? I
really want you to get this, and I think it's gettable. You
might go, wait a minute, two big words. I've told you what
they mean. You can't say, well, you know
now what they mean. Anthropomorphism, human feature
to God. Anthropopathism, human emotion
or affection to God. Now, I say that because in verse
6 we have an instance of anthropopathism, actually two. And the Lord was
sorry that he had made man on the earth and he was grieved
in his heart. Those are anthropopathisms. It is the application to God
of a human emotion. It teaches us truth, but the
truth is not that God changes, that God fluctuates, that God
moves. Rather, the truth is that God
abominates sin. God is just, God is righteous,
and Moses, in his kindness, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
or God through his kindness and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
upon Moses, says this truism about God in the manner of men. In other words, he gives it to
us in a way that we can really appreciate just how much he hates
sin. When God says, or it says, and
the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He
was grieved in His heart, the wrong lesson to take from this
is that God has an emotional life that is in flux. The right
lesson to take from this is God really hates sin. For God to
convey His hatred of sin in this particular way, to tell us that
He was actually sorry that He had made man, He must really
loathe and abominate sin. Now, we know that God doesn't
fluctuate. We know that God doesn't emote. We know that God doesn't do this
because the Bible tells us so. I, the Lord, do not change, says
the prophet Malachi. James 1 tells us there is no
variation or shadow of turning with God. He's not the same yesterday,
changes a bit today, and will be something brand new tomorrow.
The God of the Bible is absolute. The God of the Bible is immutable. That means He is unchangeable. The God of the Bible is also
impassable. That means He is without passions. He doesn't fluctuate. This is
language in the manner of man to communicate something to us
true of God, but the true of Godness of this passage is not
that He's this kind of an emotional basket case. The trueness is
that God is righteous, He abominates sin, and He is going to bring
judgment to bear upon sinners for their having committed sins
against Him. Matthew Poole, I think, explains
it well. He says, properly, God cannot
repent. That's the old King James language,
and it's a legit translation. And it repented the Lord. That's
not a bad translation of the word that is used here. But back
to Poole. Properly, God cannot repent. Now, I should just say something
about what he means by properly. There are things that we say
about God properly. Okay? God is holy. That's proper. God is just. It's proper. God is righteous. Those are proper statements concerning
God. There are improper things that
we say about God. Now by that I don't mean God
is mean, God is bad, but improper is something like God has an
arm. God has ears. God has an emotional
life that does something like that. Those are improper predications,
words about God to teach us something true, but they're not proper
in and of themselves. Thoroughly confuse everybody?
Are you with me still? I'm really wanting to keep everybody
here. So, predication. One more big
word. You got anthropomorphism, anthropopathism,
and predication. Predication is simply saying
something about something. This folder is black. Is black
is a predication. I'm saying something about the
folder. Predication is when we say something about God. God
is good. God is holy. God is just. God is righteous.
Those are proper predications. Improper predications are things
that are not like that. He's got ears. He's got eyes.
He can see the way that man does. He has this emotional life. It's
an improper predication, but it teaches us something true
about God. Okay, just keep that in mind.
So Poole says, properly God cannot repent, and then he names the
verses. Numbers 23, 1 Samuel 15, because
he is unchangeable in his nature and counsels. Malachi 3.6, James
1.17, and perfectly wise and constantly happy and therefore
not liable to any grief or disappointment. But this is spoken of God after
the manner of men. I didn't make this phrase up.
It has a long pedigree in the history of interpretation. After
the manner of men is another way of saying an improper predication. After the manner of men is a
way that we can understand something true about God as God has revealed
it to us in a way that we can understand. He goes on to say,
but this is spoken of God after the manner of man by a common
figure called Anthropopathia, whereby also eyes, ears, hands,
nose, and et cetera are ascribed to God. And it signifies, here's
what it signifies, this Anthropopathia, and it signifies an alienation
of God's heart and affections from men for their wickedness. whereby God carries himself towards
them like one that is truly penitent and grieved." It's a metaphor,
it's a way, it's a figure of speech to show us something true,
but in a way that we can understand. John Gill says, this is speaking
by an anthropopathy, after the manner of men, because God determined
to do and did something similar to men when they repent of anything. You see, it's language. calculated,
to teach us something true about God in a way that we as men can
sink our teeth into. When we read that God was sorry
that He had made man on the earth, it tells us that He despises
the condition that man is presently in. But if we think for a moment,
and we start to remember Malachi 3, or James 1, or Hebrews 13,
and we think about texts that describe God as unchangeable,
we have to have a way to make those things jive, you see? You
can't read Genesis 6 and think that God does this in his emotional
life, and then read Malachi 3 and say God does this, without attempting
to reconcile those passages. In fact, one commentator, Gordon
Wenham, who arguably is one of the best commentaries on the
book of Genesis in terms of a modern author, he says, well, the biblical
authors never attempted something like systematization. The biblical
authors most certainly do attempt systematization. It's called
the Bible. In other words, we need to make
sure that we are not having contradictions. And it's a contradiction to have
God say, I, the Lord, change not. and have the Lord say, I
change. You see? You can't allow that. And so you have to have a method
of interpretation that makes sure that you understand that
God the Lord doesn't change, and there's a way to describe
or a way to explain or interpret these texts that suggests the
alternative. So, we can have a God who does
not change, understanding verse 6 as an anthropopathism. As the Bible ascribes human features
to God, so does the Bible ascribe human emotions to God. Not to
tell us God has a heart, hands, feet, and emotional flux, but
rather to teach us something true concerning God and his hatred
for sin. That's what's happening here.
So back to Gill, he says, and it grieved him at his heart.
This is to be understood by the same figure as before, anthropopathy. For there can no more be any
uneasiness in his mind than a change in it. For God is a simple being,
uncompounded, and not subject to any passions and affections. This is said to observe his great
hatred to sin and abhorrence of it." You see, it's not in
there to tell us that God does this. It's rather in there to
tell us that God hates that. And I think that's most important.
Now, when Gil says that God is simple, uncompounded, that just
means that God's not made up of parts. God's not like us. We are composed of parts. We
are put together by God. There's a material and there's
an immaterial. There's a physical and then there's
a spiritual element. God's not compounded. God's not
made up of prior parts that have found themselves coming together
to produce God. Because that would mean there's
something more ultimate than God. God is simple. That doesn't
mean that we can understand everything there is about God. Some have
said, boy, the doctrine of divine simplicity is one of the most
difficult or complex doctrines in all of the Bible. But just
remember this. Simple with reference to God
means that he's not made up of parts. He's not put together.
He's not something that is fashioned or has been fashioned or even
fashioned himself. But he is simple. He's without
body, parts, or passions, as our confession says. Without
body, means that he's non-corporeal. Without parts means that he's
simple. Without passions means that he's impassable. Those are
sort of fundamental doctrines with reference to who God is. Very often we talk about the
attributes of God. Perhaps a better word is the
perfections of God, whatever we want to call them. It's not
that those things make up God. It's not that those things sort
of form, you know, a 33 and a third percent-ish-ness of God. No, God is all that God is. God is Himself. There's no sort
of make-up or some things that go into the production of God.
But more often than not, these popular books on the attributes
of God don't deal with without body parts and passions. Now,
most people don't need to deal without body because everybody
just assumes and believes, Jesus, that God is spirit. But it's
that without parts and without passion. Those are two of the
perfections of God that unfortunately have gone by the wayside. But
if those go by the wayside, all of God goes by the wayside. So,
all of that to say, What we find here is a way for the biblical
authors to describe for us something true of God using language that
we can understand. Now, notice the declaration of
judgment in verse 7. After that statement concerning
the divine response, verse 7 says, So the Lord said... Now, I shouldn't
bypass that. I mean, the fact is, it is an
improper predication. Try to understand that versus
a proper predication. Try to understand that God isn't
under an emotional change here. There's no flux with God. It
is speaking in the manner of men. But we need to understand
that God hates sin. If the Lord uses this language
to tell us how much he hates sin, the Lord was sorry that
he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.
That is a powerful statement concerning how much God despises
sin. And as sinners, as those who
can identify practically with the implications of verse 5,
We ought to really take heed to that, and we ought to really
be on guard against engaging in the sorts of things that grieve
the heart of God. Now note the declaration of God's
judgment, verse 7. So the Lord said, I will destroy
man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man
and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry
that I have made them. Now, it is an unfortunate reality. The lower creatures suffer because
of the sins of men. We see that in Genesis chapter
three. What does God do with reference
to the ground when Adam sins? He curses the ground. We see
in Romans chapter eight that the creation itself is yearning
for for redemption. It's an unfortunate reality that,
I don't know, innocent animals suffered at this time in the
flood. Obviously, fish didn't. I mean, that's a great judgment
if you're a fish because you're going to make it when God sends,
you know, rains upon the earth. but all the other animals got
wiped out save for the ones that were brought onto the ark. So
it's the unfortunate reality that sin is extensive and sin
is comprehensive and it affects not only man, but it affects
the lower creature as well. And then note it ends with the
manifestation of God's grace in verse 8. So you see this contrast working. You see the pre-flood conditions
prevalent among men on the face of the earth. It's a mess. It's
exceedingly corrupt. It's filled with violence. It's
ripe for the judgment of God. The Lord is sorry that he had
made man. He's grieved in his heart as
he looks down upon this. But this man Noah found grace
in the eyes of the Lord. There's a remnant theology already
beginning here in the book of Genesis. You see this sort of
emphasis on the remnant in the history of Israel. God brings
judgment. Corporately, to bear upon both
the northern and the southern kingdoms, there's always a remnant.
Remember, Elijah learned this when he's sitting under the broom
tree and he's ready for God to take him out. And God says, Elijah,
I have 7,000 that haven't bowed the knee to Baal. There were
exiles, or rather a remnant among the exiles in the time of the
prophet Jeremiah. There's always a remnant, a remnant
according to the election of grace. And you see that here
with Noah. And as well, you ought to appreciate
that grace, verse 8, precedes conduct, verse 9. Notice, Noah
found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Verse 9, this is the genealogy
of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect
in his generations. Noah walked with God. It is intriguing that grace comes
before conduct, because that is the pattern of Scripture.
It's always grace and then conduct. It's not the case that Noah was
a just man. perfect in his generations, Noah walked with God, and therefore
God gave him grace, and therefore God rewarded him, and therefore
God blessed him. No, it's the blessing of God,
it's the provision of God, it's the grace of God that leads to
the justness of Noah, to the perfection, not sinlessly, but
blamelessly, and to the reality that he walked with God. So,
the pattern holds throughout Scripture, God's grace and then
the effect in terms of man's life. And we see that here with
reference to Noah. Now, just in summary. First, I want to remind you of
the difficulty of verses 1 to 4. And I only want to do that
because, secondly, the clarity of the rest of the section. Now,
notwithstanding the anthropomorphism and the anthropopathism and the
predication and those sorts of concepts are new things that
perhaps you learned tonight, the text is very specific and
the text is very clear that God hates sin. If you ever need a
text to try and convince somebody of God's sort of view of sin,
Genesis chapter 6 is a wonderful place to take people. This particular
section highlights the fact that as man multiplies, sin multiplies. The section highlights the doctrine
of total depravity. Now, it doesn't say all that
the Bible is going to say about that doctrine, but certainly
when one constructs the doctrine of total depravity, it must include
Genesis 6 and verse 5. As well, we see the righteousness
and justice of God, seen in His abhorrence of sin and seen in
His purpose to destroy the earth. Now, there's an interesting juxtaposition
with reference to these two points. Notice, with reference to the
man in verse 5, every intent of the thoughts of his heart
was only evil continually, total depravity. Verse 6, God is grieved
in his heart. So for man, the heart is the
place where all of his wretchedness simmers and brews and ultimately
proceeds from. God's response to that, again,
in the manner of man, he's grieved in his heart. Man's heart is
busy concocting wickedness and sin and evil and vileness, and
God's heart is responding in righteousness and in justice.
As well, we see in this passage the grace and mercy of God, seen
in His giving time for repentance. Again, whatever view we take
in terms of the 120 years, 1 Peter 3.20 highlights the divine longsuffering
wherein the people at the time of Noah heard the preaching of
God, or heard the preaching of God's Word through Noah. So the
divine longsuffering of God is evident in this particular passage. As well, it's seen in his election
of grace with reference to Noah. He could have wiped out everybody,
but he gave grace to this man, Noah, and spared Noah, his wife,
his sons, and his daughters-in-law. And then finally, with reference
to this whole idea of anthropopathism, I think the Bible would have
us, I don't think, I'm sure this is the case, we must know who
God is, we must understand who He is in order to understand
what He does. It's very important. In other
words, there's not priority in the sense that some texts can
get thrown out of the Bible, but priority in terms of who
God is and then what God does. When we understand who God is,
it helps us to interpret what God does. In fact, look at 1
Samuel chapter 15 for just a moment. 1 Samuel chapter 15. Remember, this is the instance
where God tells Saul to go and utterly destroy Agag and the
Amalekites, and Saul does just the opposite. He spares Agag,
he spares the livestock, he spares the various things that would
be you know, profitable to Israel, and then he tries to say, well,
it was regarding, you know, the sacrifice for the Lord, it was
the people. I mean, talk about a study and
blame shifting, Saul's your man. But notice in 1 Samuel 15 at
verse 10. Now, the word of the Lord came
to Samuel saying, I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king.
For he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my
commandments. And then notice at verse 35.
And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death.
Nevertheless, Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted
that he had made Saul king over Israel. So Samuel knows that
God has said that he greatly regrets that he had set up Saul
as king. And yet notice what Samuel says
in 1 Samuel 15 at verse 29. And also the strength of Israel
will not lie nor relent, for he is not a man that he should
relent. Well, Samuel, didn't God just
tell you that he regrets having sets all up as gang? For Samuel,
the knowledge that God is not a man, that God does not lie,
that God does not relent, helps him understand that God is speaking
to him in the manner of man. He wouldn't suppose for a moment,
based on what he has said in verse 29, that God actually does
this. The man who utters 1 Samuel 15
29 sees that there is no change with God, sees there is no shadow
of turning with God, there's no variation with God. And so
Samuel would have rightly understood that when God says, I regret,
he is simply expressing his disdain of Saul and the fact that Saul
had rejected and rebelled against him. This has to be the way that
we understand the Bible, or else we will not be able to systematize
it. We'll have contrasting statements. God changes, God doesn't change.
God changes and God does change. You can't have that. And this
idea of anthropopathism is helpful to reckon with passages like
these. John Calvin said on the Genesis
6 passage, he says, the repentance which is here ascribed to God
does not properly belong to him, but has reference to our understanding
of him. For since we cannot comprehend
Him as He is, that's important. I don't think we rightly reckon
with that. We can't understand or comprehend
God as He is. He communicates to us in a way
that we can understand. You've heard us say many a time,
it's not the case that there's this line where it's got worm,
and then cat, and then dog, and then man, and then angel, and
then God. God is not man perfected. God is not man super. God is not man writ large. God is not just a better version
of man. God is in a different class. God is creator. Everything else
is creature. We have far more in common with
the worm. We have far more in common with
an ant. Hopefully we have good things
in common with the ant than we do with God. He's creator, we're
creature. So you see, when it comes to
us understanding God, if God does not reveal himself to us
in a way that we can comprehend, we're not going to understand
God. And that's what Calvin's saying. For since we cannot comprehend
him as he is, it is necessary that for our sake he should,
in a certain sense, transform himself. That repentance cannot
take place in God easily appears from this single consideration,
that nothing happens which is by him unexpected or unforeseen. Right? How could God repent? Wouldn't that include that he
didn't see that something was going to happen? That he couldn't
know that something was... Of course, that's just hogwash. We can't entertain that thought
of God. And then in the Institutes, Calvin makes this observation.
I think it's gold. He says the anthropomorphites,
remember, anthropomorphism, hands, feet, arms, legs, predicated
of God. Well, there's always been persons
that do that. They say, well, God has hair.
Well, if they say a hair. But God has hands, God has feet,
God has arms, because they interpret the Bible as Biblicist. They
see God's mighty right arm, and they don't think anthropomorphism.
They think, well, God must have a mighty right arm. So Calvin
is speaking to these anthropomorphites. He says, they also who imagined
a corporeal God, that means physical, bodily, who imagined a corporeal
God from the fact that scripture often ascribes to him a mouth,
ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are easily refuted. And you got
to give Calvin some credit here for the way he just throws these
barbs. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand
that as nurses commonly do with infants, God is want in a measure
to lisp in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do
not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the
knowledge of Him to our slight capacity. To do this, He must
descend far beneath His loftiness. I submit that if you understand
that, you will never have problems with passages where it says God
repented, God relented, God regretted, God was sorry. We maintain the
unchangeableness of God, the impassibility of God, and yet
we can understand perfectly well what those passages are teaching
us concerning who God is. Well, let's close in a word of
prayer. Father, we thank you for your word and we thank you
for this section in Genesis 6, 1 to 8. And I pray that you'd
help us to think through these things. And may we be encouraged
at the thought of who you are. May we be encouraged at the thought
of the grace that you display to Noah and to us, and may we
see as well what you think concerning sin. May we despise it, may we
loathe it, may it grieve us in our hearts that we would even
engage in such activities. Help us, God Almighty, to see
that you are holy, that you are righteous, that you are just,
that you are good, and that you are full of grace and full of
mercy. Go with us now, we pray, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
