The Increase of Wickedness on Earth: This passage explains why God had to judge the inhabited earth with a deluge (6:9–8:22). It has two distinct sections: a description of the rapid increase in population, when the sons of God married daughters of men (vv. 1–4), and God’s response to human violence (vv. 5–8).
The first section reports the population explosion, presumably spurred by the extraordinary marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men. During that era superheroes are said to have lived in the land. This passage is as enigmatic as it is intriguing. Its brevity, combined with a possible disturbance in the order of the verses, contributes to its obscurity. The first two verses speak of mixed marriages taking place after the population had begun to increase. Verses 3 and 4 present two facts: Yahweh would not let his Spirit continue to contend with humans, and the Nephilim were on the earth at that time. The text does not explicitly connect these facts and the marriages. With so many difficulties no certain interpretation of this passage is possible.
In the second section God decides to execute judgment on every living creature because human society has become completely wicked. The juxtaposition of these two sections suggests that the rapid increase in population has taken place in a way that has compounded wickedness. The worship of the one God, which is attested in Seth’s genealogy (4:25–5:32), has been snuffed out save for a single household. The theological principle underlying God’s judgment is that gross acts of immorality so pollute nature that the earth can no longer support its inhabitants (Lev. 18:24–28).
6:1–2 The sons of God married the daughters of men. The major interpretive issue is the identification of these men and women. Assuming that these verses offer the primary reason for the terrible wickedness in human society (v. 5), a secondary issue is to determine what transgression these marriages caused.
There are three leading proposals for the identification of the sons of God. The first is that they were heavenly beings. Consumed by lust, angels cohabited with human women, thereby transgressing the boundary between the divine and the human realms. The offspring from these unions possessed extraordinary abilities. Lacking moral constraints, they used their abilities to promote wickedness. A second proposal is that the sons of God were the mighty rulers of old. Flaunting their power, they built harems by marrying whomever they wished. Thus, their sin was polygamy, which led to a rapid increase in population. The third possibility is that the sons of God were the men of Seth’s line and the daughters of men were the offspring of Cain. These women from the rebellious line of Cain led the Sethites into the pleasures of sin, thereby over time squelching the worship of the one God Yahweh. The scenario of righteous men chasing or marrying beautiful, foreign women and being led into the worship of other gods is a recurring theme in the OT, as in the incident at Baal-Peor (Num. 25:1–2) and the apostasy of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:1–13).
Tradition favors the first view, and the allusions to it in Jude 6–7 and 2 Peter 2:4–6 support it, but the third view fits the context best by accounting for the loss of true worship on earth among Seth’s offspring. Another point in favor of the third position is that God’s coming judgment was against all humanity, not against superheroes produced from a blending of divine and human elements. As put forth in the second view, there is not sufficient information for choosing one position over the other. Also making polygamy the grave sin does not find support in the OT.
6:3 Yahweh said that his Spirit would not contend with humans forever. Many sources take the Hebrew word rendered “contend” to mean “abide.” With either meaning, God was restraining his life-giving Spirit so that humans would not live longer than a hundred and twenty years (2:7; Job 27:3). The context suggests that God limited the length of human life because the offspring of the unions described in verse 2 possessed such extraordinary energy that they lived a very long time and multiplied the doing of evil. One interpretation is that in the future humans would not live to be older than 120. If this is the meaning, it took centuries for that boundary to be put in place. The only major figure in Genesis whose recorded age at death was less than 120 years was Joseph, who died at 110. In another interpretation, God would put an end to the existence of these antediluvians after 120 years. This interpretation is possible given the position of this passage in Genesis. In either case Yahweh was asserting his sovereignty by limiting the life span of these mighty giants.
6:4 A parenthetical note states that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days. The identity of the Nephilim is far from certain. This name occurs in Numbers 13:33 for giants who did vile exploits. But given that the deluge wiped out all humans, it is doubtful that there is any genealogical connection between these two groups called Nephilim. If Nephilim comes from the root nafal, it could mean “the fallen ones.” Many ancient legends recount how giant warriors or semi-gods lost a major battle and were then imprisoned in the region of the dead. Thus it could refer to those who had fallen from heaven or to great men who at death descended to the grave or hell (Ezek. 32:20–27).
The NIV renders the Hebrew to read that the Nephilim came from the unions of the sons of God and the daughters of men and that these were the heroes of old, men of renown. But the more normal way of reading the Hebrew is that the heroes, but not necessarily the Nephilim, were offspring of these unions. The context suggests that these men were heroes because of their unusual exploits at wrongdoing. It is implied, though, that both the Nephilim and these heroes contributed to the increasing state of wickedness.
6:5–8 In this second section Yahweh expresses his resolve to wipe out all humans and animals because of the gross wickedness on earth. Although God’s goal that humans fill the earth was being realized, his desire that they live together in harmony had been shattered. Humans hurt humans, and people satisfied their own pleasure by oppressing others. These terrible conditions required the Creator to intervene with judgment. The starkcontrast between God’s coming in both judgment and mercy is amplified by a play on the Hebrew letters n, kh, and m: “was grieved” (nkhm), “wipe out” (makhah), Noah (noakh), and “found favor” (hen).
Yahweh saw that wickedness in society had reached an intolerable level. This assessment stands in bold contrast to the sixth day of creation, when God saw all that he had made was very good (1:31). Now every inclination of the thoughts in the hearts of humans was only evil all the time. Inclination means one’s orientation or disposition. “Thoughts” is literally “heart,” for the Hebrews took the heart as the center of a person’s thinking, feeling, and willing. Also, “thoughts” refers to plans that are about to be acted on, not to imaginations that have little likelihood of ever becoming reality. Because people’s hearts were corrupt, they were continually planning and doing baser things. This terrible state of human society grieved (nikhem) Yahweh, motivating him to take a different course in the way he was relating to humanity. The debased demeanor of those who bore the image of God filled God’s heart . . . with pain so that God regretted having made humans (hit’atseb; 34:7; 1 Sam. 20:34; Isa. 54:6). God’s response to human injustice reveals his intimate concern about how those who bear his image think and behave. Furthermore, this wording informs us that in bringing universal judgment on the earth, God did not act out of cold calculation or judge with indifference.
Yahweh declared that he was going to wipe out all humans, animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds. Joining animals with humans in judgment witnesses again to the close connection between these two orders.
A ray of hope shines through this bleak picture in verse 8: Noah found favor with Yahweh. This man worshiped Yahweh faithfully and lived righteously (v. 9). Therefore, Yahweh would deliver him and his family from the coming judgment.
Additional Notes
6:1–4 It is possible that at one time v. 4 followed v. 2; then v. 2 would describe the offspring of the extraordinary unions recounted in v. 4. Another difficulty in interpreting this passage is that the precise meaning of three key terms is unknown: yadon (v. 3; NIV “contend”), beshaggam (v. 3; NIV “for”), and nefilim (v. 4; NIV “Nephilim”).
Late in the Second Temple period (ca. 200 B.C.) apocalyptic writers became so fascinated with this narrative that they composed intricate stories of how a host of angels rebelled against God, fell from their high position, and spread evil on earth. According to these writers, the rebellion of the ancients resulted from their entering into unnatural unions with human women (e.g., 1 En. 6–11).
6:2 The daughters are described as good (tobot). Most often “good” is translated “beautiful,” the usual understanding for the attraction of the sons of God. However, it may mean that they were morally good, especially since this is the dominant meaning of the word in the primeval account (e.g., 1:31; 2:9; E. van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1–11 [Biblical Interpretation Series 6; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994], pp. 73–74). In that case it may support the position that the daughters were from Seth’s line, the line that worshiped Yahweh (4:26); only his genealogy customarily mentions the birth of daughters. So for van Wolde vv. 1–3 do not recount some sin; rather they give the reason that God placed a limit on the life span of the children from this union. For her the issue in this narrative is immortality, not immorality.
6:3 Suggestions for the meaning of yadon include “be humbled, humiliated” (based on Arab. dun) and “be strong, powerful” (based on Akk. dananu). Most translators follow the LXX and Vg. rendering “remain,” but the basis for this meaning is unknown.
6:6 “Grieve” (nkhm) is very difficult to translate, especially when God is the subject. One of its meanings is to take a different course of action as a result of one’s compassion being either warmed (Hos. 11:8–9) or grieved (here). Translating it “grieve” captures the emotion behind the action but fails to convey the person’s strong resolve to take a different course of action. Often nkhm is translated “repent” or “relent.” However, when God is the subject “repent” is a poor Eng. translation, for repent carries the idea of remorse for wrongdoing. The sense of “relent” or “change the mind” fails to capture the deep emotions that compel God to take a different course. Thus no Eng. equivalent proves satisfactory.
God’s relenting usually means that out of mercy he foregoes intended punishment (e.g., Exod. 32:12, 14; Amos 7:3, 6). Only twice in the OT does “relenting” describe God’s turning from favor to punishment (here and God’s rejection of Saul in 1 Sam. 15:11).
There is a linguistic tie between v. 6 and 5:29. Lamech named his son Noah that he might comfort (nkhm) people from their labor (ma’aseh) and painful toil (’itsabon). Here God was grieved (nkhm) that he had made (’asah) humans, and he was filled with pain (hit’atseb; Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, p. 303).
The Great Deluge
Because violence has increased to an intolerable level (6:1–8), God enters as judge. The Creator produces a great flood whose waters inundate the dry ground, wiping out all animal life. God thereby uncreates the earth by returning it to a chaotic condition similar to that described in 1:2. In mercy God delivers Noah, his family, and representatives of all the animals in order that they may populate a renewed earth. Afterward God declares that human life will never again be wiped out by a flood.
Frequent references to time with two distinct numbering systems structure this account. One system is based on the day, month, and year of Noah’s age, and a second defines a period in the number of days between stages:
Dates (month, day, year) Verse 2-17-600 Waters begin 7:11 7-17-600 Ark rests on Ararat 8:4 10-1-600 Tops of mountains appear 8:5 1-1-601 Waters dry up 8:13 2-27-601 Noah leaves ark 8:14–15 Days 7 days for the flood to begin 7:4 7 days for loading the ark 7:10 40 days of rain 7:12 40 days of deluge 7:17 150 days of floodwaters 7:24 150 days for floodwaters to recede 8:3 40 days before sending out raven 8:6-7 7 days later sending out a dove 8:10 7 days later sending out a dove 8:12 The second system gives the number of days leading to the deluge, for the deluge, and for disembarking. The forty days of rain and the forty days of the deluge refer to the same period and seem to be included in the 150 days of floodwaters. If this is correct, this numbering system has the flood lasting 361 days, or 368 days if the first dove was sent out seven days after the raven. According to the system of dates, the deluge lasted around 370 days, assuming months of thirty days. If the months lasted 29.5 days, the duration of the flood was a solar year of 365 days. Thus the numbers are very close. Since the numbers of days have symbolic value and are set in a palistrophic pattern, the two numbering systems mesh quite well.
Using repetition and numerous words for totality, the author conveys that all the dry land inhabited by humans was inundated. Forty-four times “all” modifies a word pertaining to the deluge. In 7:18–24 there is a concentration of categorical terms. These verses say four times that the waters swelled (i.e., “triumphed”; gabar, 7:18, 19, 20, 24; NIV has “rose,” and “flooded” in 7:24). Many words are modified by “all”: the entire heavens (v. 19), all the high mountains (v. 19), all the creatures (basar; v. 21), all humankind (v. 21), every living thing (yequm, v. 23), everything that had the breath of life (v. 22), and all on dry ground (v. 22, NIV blends these last two phrases). The statements that “only” Noah survived (v. 23) and that “the waters covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet” (v. 20) add to this emphasis.
This account contains nine units arranged in a palistrophic (chiastic) pattern (A, B, C, D, E, D′, C′, B′, A′):
A Noah’s righteous character in a violent culture (6:9–12)
B God instructs Noah to build an ark (6:13–22) and the remnant enters the ark (7:1–10)
C The start of the deluge (7:11–16)
D The waters rise (7:17–24)
E God remembers Noah (8:1a)
D′ The waters recede (8:1b–5)
C′ The waters dry up (8:6–14)
B′ God instructs Noah to leave the ark (8:15–19)
A′ Noah sacrifices (8:20–22)
God’s remembrance of Noah stands at the center (8:1a) of this arrangement. This pattern also augments the theme of the ebb and flow of the waters (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 157).
6:9–10 Noah’s toledoth heads the account of the cataclysmic flood. Verse 9 identifies him as a righteous man (tsaddiq), blameless (tamim) among the people. “Righteous” describes a person who faithfully observes God’s laws and avoids wrongdoing; “blameless” depicts a person of integrity who zealously seeks to please God in everything. Like Enoch before him (5:22), Noah walked in close fellowship with God. He had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth (5:32).
6:11–12 During Noah’s time the earth had become utterly corrupt and was full of violence (6:5). Such wickedness polluted the earth (Lev. 18:24–28). There is a wordplay on “corrupt” (shakhat) in verses 11–13. Since the earth was corrupt (vv. 11, 12), made corrupt by humans sinning (v. 12), God would destroy (lit. “cause corruption,” v. 13) both the humans and the earth. The repetition of this root stresses that God was acting justly in bringing judgment.
6:13–22 God informed Noah of the imminent deluge and instructed him to build an ark (tebah) in order that he and his household might survive. The text does not mention the time it took Noah to build the ark. God spoke to Noah three times (see also 7:1; 8:15), but no verbal reply from Noah is recorded. Instead, Noah demonstrated that he was truly righteous by faithfully carrying out God’s instructions (6:22; 7:5, 9, 16). God instructed Noah to make an ark of cypress wood, having rooms, and to coat it with pitch. It was to have three decks, a roof, and a door in the side. It measured 450 feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high with a displacement of about forty-three thousand tons. Given that the Hebrew term tebah (“ark”) occurs only here and in reference to the basket in which baby Moses was placed (Exod. 2:3, 5), it describes a vessel capable of floating in order to deliver its occupant(s) from danger. Strictly speaking the ark was not a boat, for it lacked both a means of power and a steering mechanism. Consequently, the course it tookand its ability to deliver its occupants were completely under God’s direction.
God told Noah that he was going to bring floodwaters (mabbul) on the earth to destroy all life in which there was breath (v. 17). However, God promised to establish his covenant, a formal agreement that defines a variety of relationships, with Noah. God spoke of it as “my covenant,” because he was committing to it unilaterally. “Establish” (qum) usually occurs with a covenant that is already in existence (9:9, 11, 17; 17:7, 19, 21). This covenant, then, was either the one God had made with humans at creation (implied by humans’ being made in the image of God, 1:28), or God was anticipating the covenant he would establish after the deluge (9:8–17).
Noah was to enter the ark with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives. Also he was to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, including every kind of bird, beast, and creature that moves along the ground. The account does not mention fish; these inhabitants of the waters would survive the flood. God also instructed Noah to put on board an abundant supply of food. Obediently Noah did everything just as God commanded.
7:1–10 Seven days before the deluge was to begin, Yahweh commanded Noah to enter the ark with his whole family. This time God directed him to take seven pairs of every clean animal and every bird and two of every kind of unclean animal. These instructions about clean animals supplement the earlier ones God gave (6:19–20) and explain how Noah could make sacrifices after the deluge without depleting any species. Prior to the Sinaitic law, animals were most likely classified as clean and unclean in regard to which ones could be sacrificed, not according to which were edible (Sarna, Genesis, p. 54). Noah had seven days to load the ark before God would send rain . . . for forty days and forty nights. Doing as Yahweh commanded, Noah, his family, and the animals . . . entered the ark.
7:11–24 On the seventeenth day of the second month of Noah’s six hundredth year, God produced a cataclysmic flood by letting all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and opening the floodgates of the heavens. God hereby reversed the steps taken on the second and third days of creation, when he divided the primordial water into two main bodies and set them securely in place, one beneath the earth and one above the heavenly dome (1:6–10). Once released, these waters inundated the inhabited earth. After the occupants had entered the ark, Yahweh shut the door. This statement is theologically crucial, for it informs us that God, the sovereign Judge, took sole responsibility for those who were not permitted to board the ark.
The waters continued to rise for forty days. Four references to the death of the animals, with differing verbs, stress that outside the ark no life that breathed survived. As the waters bore the ark away, the occupants were safe from the turbulence.
8:1–5 God remembered Noah and all the occupants of the ark. This short, powerful statement is underscored by its position at the center of the palistrophic pattern of this account. “Remember” (cf. 19:29; 30:22) means that God was entering the scene to reverse the destructive forces of water in order to reclaim the earth for habitation. This simple but powerful sentence stands at the center of the account as it marks God’s putting a stop to the forces of destruction and initiating the restoration of the earth. God sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. The springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens were closed. Just as the Spirit manifest as wind controlled the chaotic waters prior to creation (1:2), so God again employed the wind to drive the waters back to their reservoirs, where they would be securely held. By the seventeenth day of the seventh month the waters had receded sufficiently for the ark to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
8:6–13 After forty days Noah opened the window. In order to discover how far the waters had receded, he sent out a raven. Possibly it went out from the ark several times; then one time it did not return. Since it was a feeder on carrion, it must have eventually found abundant food. Presumably seven days later, Noah sent out a dove, a gentler bird that prefers lowlands and whose food sources would require land that had been dry for a while. This bird would let him know if the water had receded from the valleys. The dove returned. Seven days later he released the dove. This time it returned with a freshly plucked olive leaf, informing Noah that plant life was growing and the earth could again sustain the animals that were on board. Seven days later Noah sent the dove out again. When it did not return, Noah knew that the waters had fully receded so that the animals might safely leave the ark. He took the covering from the ark and saw for himself that the ground was dry.
8:14–19 Nevertheless, Noah waited patiently for God’s orders before leaving the ark. Those orders came on the twenty-seventh day of the second month. God charged all those leaving the ark to be fruitful and increase on earth. This command reiterated the one God had given humans at creation (1:28), indicating that God’s purpose for the population of the earth remained the same.
8:20–21 As his first act on dry ground Noah built an altar to Yahweh. He took some of all the clean animals and clean birds, slaughtered them, and offered burnt offerings. He presented these animals as praise offerings, lauding God for deliverance from the terrors of the deluge. In contrast to other gods of the ancient Near East, Yahweh was not dependent on sacrifices for sustenance; God’s acceptance of a sacrifice is therefore noted by God’s smelling a pleasant aroma. Smell is a powerful sense, being crucial to enjoying and discerning different tastes in foods and being a great stimulator of the memory. The smoke of this sacrifice stirred God’s compassion, moving him to be favorably disposed to humanity.
God then declared that he never again would curse the ground by a deluge because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. Westermann (Genesis 1–11, p. 456) points out that “curse” (qillel) in this form and in this context has a broad meaning (“treat disdainfully”). It says that the deluge had not changed human nature. This statement underscores God’s mercy toward humans in the continuation of human life on earth, and it alerts humans not to expect that societies from then on would be free from wickedness. Thus God had caused the deluge to punish intolerable violence on earth, not to transform human nature (6:5).
Nevertheless, despite the human inclination toward evil, God promised that never again would he destroy all living creatures. In other judgment accounts in Genesis, such as the Tower of Babel (11:1–9) and Sodom and Gomorrah (ch. 19), God judged selectively, not universally. From now on God would hold communities accountable in a manner that would prevent the entire earth from becoming corrupted by human wickedness. Furthermore, God’s mercy, not anger, would set the tone for divine-human relationships. Since humans would continue to do wicked deeds, God did not want them to fear extinction.
8:22 From now on the movement of the seasons would be dependable, despite the crises humans face. The seasons—seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter—along with day and night, mark the flow of time. This assures humans that life on earth continues uninterrupted, while at the same time letting them know that as individuals they are getting older.
Additional Notes
The relationship of this account to the Babylonian flood accounts, the literary character of this account, and the extent of the deluge need some comment. First, numerous flood accounts from throughout the world have survived. The biblical account has most in common with those from Mesopotamia, namely, Ziusudra, Atrahasis, and tablet eleven of the Gilgamesh Epic. The similarity of the biblical account to the Babylonian accounts suggests either that the biblical author adapted a Babylonian account or that both accounts go back to a common source. A. Heidel argued persuasively for the latter position (The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949], pp. 260–67).
Two major characteristics set the biblical account apart from the Babylonian accounts: the sovereignty of God and moral principle. Unlike the Babylonian gods, who cowered in fear before the rising waters (Gilgamesh Epic 11:113–26), the one God was not threatened by the waters (Ps. 29:10). When Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, offered a sacrifice after the flood, the gods crowded about the ascending smoke as flies (11:160–61). Apparently they were very hungry, since the catastrophe had prevented humans from providing them food. God, however, accepted Noah’s sacrifice just like any other offering of praise.
Furthermore, God judged righteously in Genesis, punishing the wicked and rescuing the righteous. God forewarned Noah, giving him instructions to deliver his household and the animals from the flood. But Enlil, the god of the storm, brought on the flood irrationally (11:168), making no distinction between the characters of those who were destroyed and those who survived the flood (11:179–88). Ea, the Babylonian god of wisdom, however, devised a scheme to alert Utnapishtim, a resident of Shurippak, about the coming destruction. Ea did so indirectly, by speaking to the reed hut where Utnapishtim lived (11:20–31) so that some humans might survive. Ea took this devious means in order to avoid Enlil’s wrath, threatened against any of the gods who would forewarn any human of the coming deluge (11:170–73). No reason is given for Ea’s favoring Utnapishtim.
After building a boat in seven days, Utnapishtim took on board a variety of skilled workers, seemingly with no regard for their character (11:84–85). Utnapishtim, however, duped the people of his city by telling them that he had to leave their city because Enlil had turned hostile to him, while Enlil was going to make them prosper (11:39–47). Just before the deluge Utnapishtim made a great feast with rivers of liquor so that the citizens would not be alarmed by the rising waters (11:70–74). After the flood Enlil granted Utnapishtim and his wife eternal life, but they had to live at the mouth of the rivers, which was far removed from society (11:189–95). By contrast, God delivered only Noah and his household because of Noah’s righteous character. Nothing is reported in the biblical account of how Noah responded to his neighbors (but see 2 Pet. 2:5). God displayed his mercy after the deluge by establishing a unilateral covenant of peace with all humans, not just Noah. In fact, Noah continued to live like the other primeval peoples until his death.
A second problem is the literary issue of how to explain the repetitions that mark this account. Those repetitions include two names for God, Yahweh and Elohim; a flood of forty days (7:4, 12, 17a) and a deluge of 150 days (7:24; 8:3); the command to take on board a pair of all animals (6:19–20) in contrast to the command to preserve seven pairs of clean animals (7:2–3); and the twofold command to enter the ark (6:18b–20 and 7:1–3), along with the double report of taking occupants on board (7:7–9 and 13–16a). Throughout the twentieth century, scholars attributed these repetitions to an editor who wove together two flood stories that had circulated independently in the collections of the Yahwist (J) and of the priestly source (P). The segments they assigned to the respective sources are as follows: J (Yahwist): 6:5–8; 7:1–5, 7–8, 10, 12, 16b, 17, 22–23; 8:2b, 3a, 6–12, 13b, 20–22; and P: 6:9–22; 7:6, 9, 11, 13–16a, 18–21, 24; 8:1–2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14–19.
Several studies have reevaluated this literary analysis and discovered that the final form of this account of the deluge was composed as a whole (e.g., B. Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11,” JBL 97 [1978], pp. 23–39). Its palistrophic construction is as a story that moves in stages toward and away from a center, with the respective stages echoing each other. The time spans also follow such a pattern: 7, 7, 40, 40, 150, 150, 40, 7, and 7 days. G. Wenham discovers other examples of this pattern in smaller segments of the account (“The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 [1978], pp. 337–42). This intricate, unified structure requires a final author who used the repetition for emphasis.
A third perplexing issue is whether this account reports a universal or a local flood. It is important to stress that the cosmology of the OT allowed for a universal flood. At creation God divided the sea into two parts and then formed the mountains (1:6–10). In ancient thought God could reverse the steps of creation at will, causing the mountains to sink and the seas to rise (Ps. 104:5–9). Furthermore, the view of chaos-cosmos is tied into that of God’s blessing and cursing. Thus in judgment God moves the earth toward chaos (see on 1:2), but in blessing he brings the forces of cosmic order to flourish. Second, we know from the great number of flood accounts that the tradition of a great flood was widespread. This evidence, however, is offset by the fact that several peoples in a variety of locations lack a flood account, including two of ancient Israel’s closest neighbors, Egypt and Ugarit. Another difficulty is the lack of geological evidence of a global flood after humans occupied the earth.
The local flood view is not necessarily the opposite of a global view. Since, from the biblical author’s perspective, the deluge covered the known land mass, the flood is spoken of in categorical terms. But for that author the earth was a landmass surrounded by water, not a giant sphere. Consequently the categorical language does not require a global flood. Thus, the acceptance of a deluge of reduced dimensions squarely faces the lack of geological evidence that a common flood covered the entire Levant. Future geological studies might close the gap between the written record and human knowledge. In the meantime this text teaches soundly that all humans are morally accountable to God.
6:14 The precise meaning of goper, translated either “cypress” or “cedar wood,” has been lost. “Rooms” is qinnim (lit. “nests”), but others prefer to read qanim (“reeds”), for both Moses’ ark and the ark in the Babylonian account were made from reeds.
6:17 Mabbul (“floodwaters”) is used for this deluge. The precise meaning is debated. It may mean “destruction,” or it may refer to the part of the great body of water confined above the expanse (1:7). The only other occurrence of this term is Ps. 29:10: “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood.”
8:4 The ark came to rest somewhere in the mountain range of Ararat, in Urartu in the area of Lake Van, not necessarily on the highest peak, Mount Massia, which is about seventeen thousand feet in elevation. Over the centuries this mountain has often been identified as Mount Ararat.
