One Man against a World of Monster Men

“Be different — because that’s what your friends all want.” So read a tee-shirt from a generation ago, pointing to the obvious (or not so obvious) allure of the image of the contrarian, the rebel, or simply the one who marches to the beat of a different drummer. It all looks very attractive. In the movies, that is. In real life, things are different. It turns out that Adam’s offspring are the establishment, the herd, the machine, or whatever imagery one wants to ball up his pretentious fist against. If we would really march to a truly different beat, it will be the rhythm from the once and future world; not ultimately the one in between.

That title stands no matter what we decide about who these Nephilim were. That is crucial if we are going to take any application out of the passage. In fact, the real world is teeming with monsters. They are human monsters, at any rate. They are the UnMan, to borrow from C. S. Lewis’s brilliant psychological depiction of man in sin (and even the man of sin) in the character named Weston, reaching the depths of his depravity in Perelandra. He was hybrid—half man, half devil. Speaking of that world that stood in an earlier stage of development than the others in the Space Trilogy, we return to Genesis, now at 6:1-13, and we observe a world prepared for an early destruction. That is the proper setting to understand this hybrid of hybrids. 

• A mystery: Fallen angels or mighty men?

• A paradox: Eternal decree or divine regret?

• A false dilemma: God’s grace or Noah’s righteousness?

Doctrine. In a world of monster men and captive women—be a Noah.     

DOCTRINE

A mystery: Fallen angels or mighty men?

These ‘the sons of God’ (v. 2) are often linked directly to ‘The Nephilim’ (v. 4a) since it repeats the expression:

“and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (v. 4).

So who is this THESE? The relative pronoun can refer either to the “sons of God” in the first part of the previous sentence, or to their offspring in the second part of the sentence. It doesn’t further clarify. As to that expression, SONS OF GOD, the term is used of angels in Job 1 and 2, whereas even “gods” (elohim) is used of MEN OF RENOWN in 1 Samuel 28 and Psalm 82. So one resolution is to see these as the pre-Flood “giants” (i.e. of renown), whereas others appeal to angels, given 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 talking about the angels exceeding their boundaries. Yet such texts are inconclusive with respect to this question.

We may want to know that the Hebrew word is just the plural הנפלים for giant, “nephil” (נְפִיל), even though technically the root is “to fall” (נָפַל). If we attach significance to that root, it would still beg the question as to what or which fall. There is no other ancient source for them, so it is question-begging to assume up front that these were any special race or hybrids of angels and men. Moreover it is reasonable to infer that the other mention of Nephilim after the flood (Num. 13:33) signifies the people’s disbelief and exaggeration of their enemies in the land.

But there is another view. That is the “sons of God” also frequently refers to the children of God among men. Think of the fact that we interpret this hinges on what happened to Seth’s line. Let us ask ourselves what the big sin is that would make God judge mankind. No longer was marriage viewed as God’s design of multiplying His image through a godly seed. It was replaced by pure lust: ‘the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose’ (v. 2).

Do the math on that godly line from Chapter 5. Commentators like Morris will do the actual math. No need for us. But just figure a low number of four males for each generation. That makes 16 males for the second, 64 for the third, 256 for the fourth, and so on. You get the idea. In other words, either most of those males and their family were murdered, or most of those males took ungodly wives—because, as we will see, only eight persons got into that ark—so a very reasonable position is the one by those, like Calvin, who saw this as the

“base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God.”1

Matthew Henry notes of Noah’s favor, that “distinguishing favors bring under peculiarly strong obligations.”2 That makes sense in light of Jesus’s words that, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required” (Lk. 12:48). Eternal life is the most one can be given, therefore from the Christian the most is required—not a bare minimum.

Note that part of the judgment is the explanation for the age difference: ‘his days shall be 120 years’ (v. 3b). There have been two basic answers to that. One is to think of it in a more specific or even wooden way. A note from the Reformation Study Bible gives the most respectable way to hold to this view:

“120 years. Probably the span of time between this proclamation and the Flood (5:32; 7:6). It may refer to an individual’s life span, but that interpretation seems contradicted by the age of the postdiluvians who at first lived much longer (Gen. 11) and then much less (Ps. 90:10).”

Another possibility, which I think is the more reasonable option, is that the 120 years was a general sentence and that this even withered down as the generations proceeded on from Noah and the first few. That it is a general sentence means an approximation. It is not predicting the maximal number. In other words, there was nothing universal in the number “120,” but rather this was a significantly reduced lifespan compared to what it was, and it would be an “at most” number after a few generations.

A paradox: Eternal decree or divine regret?

The order here is meant to draw the reader in from the divine resolution, back to the human problem, then, finally, up into the divine mystery that calls for so much of our reflection, in three basic points:

First, what is the divine resolution? It says, ‘Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh’ (v. 3). First question: Is this a reference to the Holy Spirit in particular? Much would depend on whether “abide in” or “contend / strive with” (דִּין) is the correct rendering of the Hebrew word directly following. If the former, then it is more like the general sense of the spiritual nature, such as Adam had and therefore all in him as human beings. It would be a way of speaking of them remaining alive in this world. If the latter, then it can be the general work of the Spirit such as John 16:8-10 describes. But the word is actually diverse, even having the sense of to “judge” or “execute judgment.”3

Second, what is the human problem that brings it about? ‘The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ (v. 5). A few weeks ago, I remember quoting 1 Samuel 16:7, that “the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” Here, that is very bad news. Everything of the inner man, no matter how far down you could search and everything we do until death: ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY. So this depravity of our natures is total in terms of its depths and in terms of its duration—internal and continuous. If no other verse in the Bible taught the total depravity of man (which many verses do), Genesis 6:5 would be enough to solidify that doctrine beyond the doubt of any honest reader.

Now, it may be asked: Is this a general description of the heart of man, or else something specific to that generation? I remember hearing the latter from an Arminian who once visited my church and objected to my appeal to this verse. What should we say to this? (1) Not too much later in the text of Genesis, we will run into the same diagnosis of man’s heart as a reason that God will respond in the opposite way for a time (Gen. 8:21)4—that is, it is taken for granted about all mankind even after Noah. (2) It is the teaching of the rest of the Old Testament:

“The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one” (Ps. 14:2-3).

(3) It is the clear teaching of the New Testament. Jesus says that, “everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (Jn. 8:34). Paul quotes from that Psalm in Romans 3 and expands upon it; and elsewhere says that we “were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (Eph. 2:4).

“For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another” (Titus 3:3).

Now we are ready, third, to encounter the divine mystery of God’s language which condescends to our level. We read here that ‘the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart’ (v. 6). That God “regretted” or “was sorry” is another example of God’s accommodating His language to ours. You will recall we already ran into examples of what we called anthropomorphism in the Garden of Eden. An anthropomorphism is a form of figurative speech whereby God depicts himself in the form (morphe) of a man (anthropos). The purpose is to explain one or a few things at a time rather than the otherwise infinite amount of relations about God that are “behind the scenes” of the narrative. Here we must add to that the term anthropopathism—pathos being the Greek word for feeling. In the case of Genesis 6:6, all it is expressing is God’s stance toward sin and sinners, that they, in themselves, were regrettable. Likewise, with texts like Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:11, 35; Jonah 3:9-10, or Jeremiah 18:8-10, the “turn” is not in the divine essence or decree, anymore than the “regret” of Genesis 6:6 is a reflection of either learning or frustration in the divine essence. Rather, by this anthropomorphism, we are shown something that actually is our business, in very earthly language that all can understand.

A false dilemma: God’s grace or Noah’s righteousness?

Let us view the two crucial verses from an “aerial view” of the text.

First, it says that ‘Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD’ (v. 8).

Second, it says ‘Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God’ (v. 9). God’s FAVOR (the same Hebrew word for grace: חֵן) on Noah preceded his righteous status. This righteousness spoken of is Noah’s practical righteousness. In the Bible there are two ways in which the righteousness of the righteous is spoken of—either than judicial right-standing with God that only Christ can earn for us, and which is ours by faith alone (that’s “righteous” in the context of justification); or else that practical right-living before God (that’s “righteous” in the context of sanctification). I believe that Genesis 6:9 could very well have both in view. The context could easily highlight both. The backdrop is the evil world playing out. Noah will act, or he WALKED,5 in the opposite direction, so that seems like practical righteousness would come to the forefront. That’s true. But, as we’ll see, the waters and the ark comes to represent divine judgment and mercy in salvation, so that something like judicial righteousness comes to the forefront. No need to pit them against each other. Just remember to keep first things first—grace precedes both the faith which connects us to Christ’s righteousness and that walking with God.

We should also notice that this is not the only time this happens with characters in the Bible. Think also of Job and Lot, who are directly called “righteous” (Job 1:1; 42:8; 2 Pet. 2:7) like Noah is here; but also of those like Joseph and Daniel who are portrayed as basically virtuous—any sin kept out of view—yet other places will demonstrate their own need for redemption. In each of these cases this is speaking either of their practical righteousness, which is that relative righteousness lived out by a believer after they have been justified by faith alone; or, what is most likely in the case of Lot for sure, and possibly even with Noah, is that they are being identified as righteous as to their position with God. It is enough of a shorthand for the story to move along, and not meant to be a statement of some alternative path to justification with God.

Now put grace and practical righteousness together. The Bible does—“even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4); and,

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” (Jn. 15:16).

But circling back to the passage as a whole, what were the defining characteristics of these days of Noah—this world gone mad? One we’ve already seen. Marriage to propagate God’s line was totally subverted. But this is only a symptom of a deeper evil, that of leaving God’s word and will behind for any other supposed good. Beyond that, the reference to take for themselves however they pleased seems, to many commentators, to suggest a more general tyranny. That is confirmed by the final words of our passage today:

“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth” (vv. 11-12).

And then He repeats the word VIOLENCE in verse 13. That is a word that we need to pay careful attention to as we move forward in Genesis and the rest of the Bible. A world of monster men and captive women will accuse the godly of violence.

Practical Use of the Doctrine

Use 1. Correction. It is often objected that this punishment was unthinkable, or beneath God, and so forth—First, ‘I will blot out man’ (v. 7a), but also ‘man and animals’ (v. 7b). And so the objection is that this is an attitude that we have that is worthy of such a punishment itself.

“God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them’” (v. 13).

Just as God is the One who said, “I will put enmity” (3:15) between the two cities, so He now exerts a holy violence against those who the godly must see as those who have made themselves monsters: “So will Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence, and will be found no more” (Rev. 18:21).

Use 2. Admonition. What does it mean to “be a Noah,” but to stand? Even to stand alone.

Jesus said,

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mk. 8:38).

If we will not so much as develop a taste for being contrarians, we will certainly not actually take a stand in the external circumstances, or even in words that outlast a season of criticism and alienation. Therefore, to stand requires that we “despise the shame” (Heb. 12:2), as Jesus did in that far surpassing motivation that endured the cross. We must endure lesser crosses, but not by minimizing them, nor soft-pedaling the antithesis between the two warring kingdoms.

Use 3. Exhortation. The tendency of Christians in times of affluence, times of presumption, times of boredom, is to gravitate to the sensationalistic—which is not the same as to gravitate to the spiritual—but the sensational in some trivia. I always use the Nephilim as my example of this, not because there is anything wrong with being curious about it, but because it can become a painful indicator of a bored and oblivious people who have the most sensational reality going on right under their nose, but they are missing it. What will be just like the days of Noah? Will it be superhuman beings—spiritual realities—possessing the bodies or at least the souls of the wicked in high places? Will it be the same, but through human ingenuity—bureaucrats and scientists regularly taking their marching orders from the demons that hold them captive?

It may indeed be all of that, but the one constant will be a spiritual death and universal contempt for the things of God. This conformity to the world would deceive even the elect if possible. There is that caveat in Jesus’s statement in the Olivet Discourse (Mat. 24:24). Ultimately, it is impossible that the elect will be swept away in the flood of mankind’s rebellion. But this stand against the tide looks like something. One cannot be trained for it by trivia. One cannot be awakened to what matters most by clinging to Evangelicalism’s recent past, which had labored to become as accommodating to the flood of culture as possible. We must be comfortable with the reality that what is swirling around our building ship are not mere curious onlookers, but a gathering, violent force. The UnMan most come into his own as all things come to a head. 

______________________________

1. Calvin, Commentaries, I:238.

2. Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 23.

3. Calvin tells of “some of the Hebrews [who] derive the word which Moses uses from the root of נדן (nadan,) which signifies a scabbard. And hence they elicit the meaning that God was unwilling for his Spirit to be any longer held captive in a human body, as if enclosed like a sword in the scabbard” (Commentaries, I:240-41).

4. Abraham Kuyper contrasts 6:5 to 8:21, fielding this same objection, and calls our attention to both places, that “for the exact same reason,” God was committed to destroy humanity in one case, yet preserve it in the other. But this condition is the same in both cases. Although here, in 6:5, Kuyper continues, there is an additional emphasis that “is not the condition of the heart of sinners that is being described in general, but that particular situation affecting our human race before the flood.” So you have to be able to make those distinctions—allowing for a universal principle (total depravity) and an intensified difference (depravity running its course). Calvin even appears to grant this as a necessity in his comments on 8:21, since, “If, however, they were to be dealt with according to their deserts, there would be a necessity for a daily deluge” (Calvin, Commentaries, I:284).

5. This word הָלַךְ is where the Jews derived the halaka, or those commentaries on the application of the law. The word can mean both “walk” and “manner of life.”