Genesis 6 Study Notes

6:1-4 The first four verses of this chapter serve as a transition introducing the account of God’s greatest act of nature-based judgment on sinful humanity. Positively, these opening verses demonstrate humanity’s faithfulness in fulfilling God’s command to “multiply, fill the earth” (1:28). This brief portion of Genesis is one of the most controversial sections of the entire Bible. Major disagreements surround each of these verses. Careful study of the Hebrew text does not end the debates; if anything, it only sharpens them. The controversies are listed below.

6:2 This verse begins to build the case that there was something terribly wrong about the way in which God’s command to multiply was being fulfilled. Using language that parallels the sequence leading to humanity’s first sin in the garden (3:6), the sons of God first saw something that they thought was good, and then took what they desired for themselves.

Controversy (cp. Jdg 14:1-2) surrounds the phrase “the sons of God.” Three different basic positions have been staked out regarding the identity of these “sons.” They have been understood as heavenly beings (an ancient Jewish position, still accepted by many today), as kings or men of high social status, and as men from the godly family line of Seth.

Favoring their identity as heavenly beings—likely angels—is the fact that elsewhere in the OT the phrase “sons of God” refers only to heavenly creatures (Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7) and that the NT refers to fallen angels (2Pt 2:4; Jd 6). Those who accept this view hold that the sin that prompted God’s anger in this passage was a violation of Gn 2:24, brought about by sexual relations between human and angelic beings, resulting in the creation of the Nephilim. But this view has its difficulties. For instance, Jesus indicated that angels do not marry (Mt 22:30) and Paul used the phrase “sons of God” to refer to godly people, not angels (Gl 3:26).

The view that the “sons of God” are kings or aristocrats is supported by the fact that Elohim, the common Hebrew word for “God,” is sometimes applied to persons who have great social power (Ps 82:6-7; Jn 10:34-35). Advocates of this position say that the “daughters of mankind” were people of lower social status. Thus the passage is thought to indicate possible abuse of lower class women by licentious men of privilege. Interpreters who take this view do not necessarily connect the Nephilim with these marriages.

The third position is the most popular view among evangelical Christians. It assumes that the “sons of God” were descendants of godly Seth, while the “daughters of mankind” were descendants of ungodly Cain. Assuming the descendants of both men kept true to the moral examples set by their respective ancestors, the union of these two spiritually incompatible lines was contradictory to God’s will (2Co 6:14) and resulted in the total corruption of humanity, represented by the Nephilim.

6:3 The meaning of this verse is one of the most disputed in the Bible: Is it about God shortening humanity’s life spans, or about God setting a time for the universal flood? There is no general agreement as to its meaning, so the various Bible translations reflect translators’ differing viewpoints. Accordingly, disagreement exists among translators regarding the reference to Spirit; some understand the Hebrew word to refer to the animating force present in living beings—thus rendering it “spirit” (KJV)—while many others, such as the CSB, understand it to refer to the Holy Spirit. Closely related to this issue is the appropriate translation of the phrase rendered in the CSB as remain with. Significant variations include “abide in” (ESV) and “contend with” (NIV). Complicating the issue still further is the Hebrew word basar, which is normally translated “flesh” (KJV) but which can be taken figuratively to refer to that which is corrupt.

6:4 Two major questions arise in this verse: who are the Nephilim and what if anything is the connection of the Nephilim to the sons of God and the daughters of mankind? The word Nephilim is actually a transliteration—not a translation—of the Hebrew word; translated, it means “fallen ones,” a phrase that could mean morally or physically degraded individuals, or possibly angels who fell from heaven (Is 14:12).

In spite of its literal meaning, many versions (e.g., KJV, NLT) have followed the Septuagint in translating it as “giants,” a guess seemingly based on the mention of Nephilim in Nm 13:33. This proposal appears unlikely, however, since no Nephilim would have survived the flood (Gn 7:22-23) and thus could not have lived during the post-flood events narrated in Numbers. Further, the Nephilim are never mentioned as one of the groups to be wiped out by the Israelites when they entered Canaan. Their mention in Nm 13 probably came from the lips of a fear-crazed spy who misinterpreted what he had seen in Canaan.

Were the Nephilim products of the marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of mankind (v. 2)? Possibly, but in the Hebrew text there is no explicit connection between them. Moreover, the fact that they were on the earth . . . in those days, i.e., before and during the sinful unions, leads some to suggest that their origins are elsewhere. Whatever their ancestry, as powerful and famous men they played a significant role in pre-flood society.

6:5 God, who alone can observe both people’s outward actions (Jb 34:21) and their thoughts (1Sm 16:7), saw what was visible—that human wickedness was widespread—and what was invisible—that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time. The word translated “mind” is literally “heart,” reflecting the ancient conception that this organ was the seat of the intellect, emotion, and will.

6:6 For the first time in the Bible, the Lord regretted something that he had made. However, his regret did not stem from something he had done wrong, but rather from what humanity was doing wrong. The fact that people had become totally preoccupied with evil grieved him deeply, much as Israel’s sin would later grieve him (Ps 78:40-41; Is 63:10).

6:7 Humanity was created to obey, worship, and fellowship with God. However, the magnitude of people’s sin had progressively increased from that of eating forbidden fruit (3:6), to murder (4:8), to polygamy and multiple murders (4:23), and finally to worldwide preoccupation with evil (6:6). God’s patience had come to an end, and the curse pronounced against Adam would now be amplified in a single catastrophic act. Since humanity was the capstone of God’s creation, the elimination of people would take away any need for the ecological support system that sustained them; therefore, it was expedient to destroy the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds as well. Even as Adam’s sin had caused him to lose the garden of Eden and Cain’s sin drove him from the soil, the sins of humanity would now cause them to lose the earth.

6:8 This contrast to the rest of humanity anticipates Noah’s contrasting destiny. The word favor means undeserved blessing given by a powerful being to one who is less powerful. Noah did not earn his salvation, but his life did demonstrate that he possessed saving faith (Heb 11:7). A wordplay exists in Hebrew between the words for “Noah” and “favor,” as both contain the same two consonants but use them in reverse order: n-ch/ch-n.

6:9-10 The family records of Noah is the third of eleven (Hb) toledoth sections in Genesis (2:4; 5:1; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12,19; 36:1,9; 37:2).

6:11-12 Within these two verses three different forms of the verb corrupt are used to describe what humanity had done to itself and the world in Noah’s day. The Hebrew word translated “corrupt” means “to bring to ruin, to destroy.”

6:13 For the first time in the Bible—but by no means the last (18:17; Am 3:7)—God is shown expressing to one person what his intentions were for others. Noah is thus established as a prophet, a role that he would faithfully fulfill (2Pt 2:5). As indicated first in Gn 6:5-7, God would put an end to every creature . . . because of human sin. But judgment would not be limited to people; God would also destroy . . . the earth. Sadly, one of the victims of human sin is the earth on which we live (Lv 26:18-20; Is 24:4-7; Jr 12:11; Hs 4:1-3).

6:14 Because of God’s grace (v. 8) and Noah’s relationship with God (v. 9), Noah and his family would be saved in an ark, along with the land and air animals. The Hebrew term translated “ark” is used only in the Noah account and the story of Moses’s early childhood (Ex 2:3); as used in the Bible it refers to a watertight vessel used to preserve human life from impending disaster. Gopher is the transliteration of a Hebrew word whose meaning is unknown; gopher wood may be pine or cypress or something extinct.

6:15 Noah was to make the ark rectangular and barge-like in shape, six times longer than it was wide, and ten times longer than it was high. These ratios have been used to produce seaworthy craft for centuries. In the Hebrew text the measurements are expressed as “cubits,” a cubit being the length from a person’s elbow to the end of the fully extended middle finger—about eighteen inches. The 450-foot length made the ark the largest ship known to be constructed in ancient times. The ark was to contain an unspecified number of rooms—literally, “nests”—and was to have two layers of pitch, (that is, asphalt or bitumen) painted over the boards.

6:16 The Hebrew word translated roof can also be translated “window” or “hatch.” If the term means “roof,” then the text probably indicates that it was to extend eighteen inches over the sides of the boat. If the term means “window,” then it refers to an eighteen-inch high gap separating the four sides of the boat from its roof.

6:17 Only after he commanded Noah to make the ark did God tell him why it was to be built: God was bringing a flood—a term used only in connection with the massive, all-destroying flood in Noah’s day. Everything on earth will perish. The biblical language here and elsewhere in Gn 6-8 most naturally indicates that Noah’s flood covered the entire globe. The apostle Peter seems to affirm this (2Pt 2:5; 3:6). That the flood was global has been the dominant Christian understanding throughout history and remains so today. Defenders of this view offer models to explain the flood’s impact on the geological column. They also tackle questions such as how much water was required to flood the entire globe. If geography today reflects pre-flood geography, scientists estimate that Earth would have needed four times the current quantity of water for the flood to cover the highest mountains (Gn 7:19-20). In this light some defenders of a global flood have suggested that pre-flood geography differed from today’s geography. Specifically, they suggest that Earth’s landscape was flatter in the pre-flood era, thus requiring less water to flood, and that the violent flood created many of today’s geographical and geological features. Others take a different approach, suggesting that pre- and post-flood geography is largely the same, that the flood did indeed require a greater quantity of water than is now present on Earth, and that by an unknown mechanism Earth’s quantity of water has greatly diminished after the flood.

Citing the flexible application of some terms used to describe the flood (e.g., kol ha’arets is rendered as “throughout the earth” in 7:3 but legitimately can refer to limited areas of land), the inclusion of details that could indicate a regional flood (e.g., the dove returning with a “plucked olive leaf” in its beak just as soon as the waters subsided despite the fact that low-lying areas where olive trees now grow would have been fully submerged for roughly a year, 8:11), and the difficulty of finding traces of a global flood in earth’s geological record, some evangelicals conclude that Noah’s flood covered only that portion of the earth that was inhabited by humans. In this view the flood destroyed all humans except the persons on Noah’s ark, but did not need to cover the whole globe to do so, since the flood of Noah occurred before the dispersion of the nations in Gn 10.

6:18 The term covenant refers to a binding, formal agreement between two parties—a sort of treaty, pact, or contract.

6:19 God’s preservation of Noah meant that earth and humanity would still need the ecological support network of animals. Consequently, Noah was to bring into the ark one male and one female of all the living creatures. Representatives of all vulnerable species were to be preserved.

6:20-21 Noah would not have to go on safaris to collect the various animals. They would come to him so he could keep them alive. On at least three other occasions in the Bible God directed animals to go to people (Ex 16:13; Nm 11:31; 1Kg 17:2-6).

6:22 As other heroic men of the Bible would do in later times—Moses and Aaron (Ex 7:6), Aaron’s sons (Lv 8:36), Joshua (Jos 11:9), Gideon (Jdg 6:27), Samuel (1Sm 16:4), David (2Sm 5:25), and Elijah (1Kg 17:5)—Noah did everything that God had commanded him. An undetermined amount of time had passed between this verse and the previous verses in this chapter. Certainly the construction of the ark would have been a lengthy endeavor.