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.
Marriages of Sons of God and Daughters of Men
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,
The Angelic Interpretation
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,
The Choice of Wives and Eden's Echo
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.
Wickedness of Man on the Earth
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,
The Declaration of Judgment
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
The Manifestation of Grace
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.