Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in the Primeval History

By Robert Gonzales, Jr.

Robert Gonzales, Jr. is the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (www.rbseminary.org) in Easley, South Carolina, where he also serves as a pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. He has an M.A. in theology and a Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University.

Mankind was expelled from Eden’s Garden as a result of his sin (3:22-24). Yet he was not immediately banished from the land of Eden itself, nor was he completely barred from access to God’s presence and favor. Just as Yahweh-Elohim’s covenantal threat-sanction of death (2:17) included an implied promise-grant of eschatological life (2:9, 22), so Yahweh’s judicial curse-penalty (3:14-19) contained an implied reinstatement of the original promise-grant of life by which the Serpent-initiated rebellion would be reversed and the original prospects of eschatological fullness would be restored (3:15). However, as the curse-promise portended and as the events subsequent to mankind’s tragic fall revealed, God chose not to reestablish his original kingdom objectives instantaneously. Instead, the Creator-now-turned-Redeemer opted, according to his wisdom, to display the riches of his grace against the backdrop of the fullness of human sin. Accordingly, postlapsarian history unfolds a story of the spread of human sin. As surely as mankind multiplies and fills the earth, so human sin advances in stride.[1] This sad story of human depravity in turn provides the background against which divine justice and mercy are gloriously displayed.[2]

Brother Kills Brother

The record of life outside the Garden begins with a birth-notice of Adam and Eve’s firstborn son, Cain, and Eve’s maternal response (4:1). The birth of a second son, Abel, is also recorded but without any accompanying maternal response (4:2a). The asymmetry may suggest that the firstborn child occupied Eve’s special attention.[3] More likely, though, it is Moses who is especially interested in Cain, evidenced by the fact that he refers to Abel not as Eve’s “son” but as Cain’s “brother.” The following verses confirm that Cain is the main actor in the plot. From the brothers’ births, Moses quickly moves forward in time to their adulthood, noting Abel’s vocation as a “keeper of sheep” and Cain’s as a “worker of the ground” (4:2b). At an appointed time, the brothers appear before Yahweh to engage in an act of worship[4] with an offering corresponding to their respective vocations (4:3-4a). Cain brought Yahweh “of the fruit of the ground [מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה],” which corresponds to his vocation as a farmer. Abel, on the other hand, brought Yahweh “of the firstborn of his flock [מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ],” which matches his profession as a sheepherder. However, “Yahweh looked with approval [וַיִּשַׁע] toward Abel and his offering, but toward Cain and his offering he looked with disapproval [לֹא שָׁעָה]”5 (4:4b-5a; author’s translation). The chiastic structure underscores the stark contrast in the way Yahweh views the respective worshipers and their gifts. Some commentators have attempted to ground God’s rejection of Cain’s offering or acceptance of Abel’s offering either in the nature of their vocations or their sacrifices (i.e., a grain offering vs. an animal offering).[6] Herman Gunkel, for example, draws the conclusion, “The narrative maintains that Yahweh loves the shepherd and animal sacrifice, but wants nothing to do with the farmer and fruit offerings.”

Others have supposed that the basis for God’s rejection of Cain’s offering lies in the fact that it was bloodless in contrast with Abel’s. Robert Candlish asserts, “To appear before God with whatever gifts, without atoning blood, as Cain did—was infidelity.”[7] But these interpretations are tenuous. Both the items Cain and Abel bring to Yahweh are designated a מִנְחָה, that is, an offering, gift, or tribute. In the Pentateuch, מִנְחָה designates Jacob’s “gift” or “tribute” given to Esau, which consisted of livestock (Gen. 32:13ff.) and Jacob’s “gift” of agricultural products to the vizier of Egypt (Gen. 43:10, 11, 15, 25, 26). The term is also used for an acceptable “grain offering” (Exod. 29:41; Lev.2:1ff.; 5:13; 6:7, 8, 13). Outside the Pentateuch, מִנְחָה is used for a gift or tribute that usually corresponded in nature and value to one’s social standing (Judg. 3:15-18; 2 Sam. 8:2, 6; 1 Kings 4:21 [Heb. 5:1]; 10:25). These facts should suffice to demonstrate that Yahweh’s displeasure with Cain’s act of worship resided neither in his vocation nor in the type of gift he brought. Moreover, careful reading of the text indicates that Abel’s devotion to the Lord was authentic and heartfelt; Cain’s was not. The use of the personal pronoun הוּא suggests that Abel took personal interest in this offering: “he himself, or he, on his part, brought the offering.” Moreover, Abel is said to have brought “the firstborn [מִבְּכֹרוֹת]” from among his flock; whereas, it is not said that Cain brought of the “first-fruits [בִּכּוּרִים]” (see Lev. 2:14; 23:17, 20).” Moses also draws attention to the fact that Abel’s offering included the “fat-portions [וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן]” of the firstborn. This may be a hendiadys and could be translated as “the fattest of the firstborn.” So Abel brought the Lord his very best, and he did so with personal interest.[8] Cain’s lack of devotion to Yahweh is the first indication that sin has spread from the primordial parents to their offspring.

More troubling, however, is Cain’s response to Yahweh’s disapproval and admonition. Like his parents, Cain fails to render to Yahweh supreme love and loyalty. But whereas Adam and Eve’s response was primarily one of guilt and fear (3:7-10), Cain responds in anger and self-pity (4:5b). There appears to be an intensification of evil in Cain’s heart that was not present in his parents’ hearts. Yahweh initially responds to Cain by encouraging repentance (4:6-7a).[9] Moreover, he warns Cain against succumbing to sin’s enslavement: “if you do not do well (i.e., repent), sin is crouching at the door [לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ]. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (4:7b). This may be an allusion to the Serpent poised to strike and poison Cain, as he poisoned Cain’s parents (Gen. 3:1, 4-5).[10] Whatever the precise imagery, Cain must master sin, or sin will master him.[11]

Instead of publicly acknowledging his wrong to Yahweh and dealing with his sinful anger,[12] Cain speaks to Abel privately (4:8a),[13] probably suggesting to his brother that he had something he wanted to communicate to him outside, away from Yahweh’s presence. Hence, Cain’s deed is premeditated.[14] And when the two brothers pass through “the door” of the sanctuary,[15] Cain conveys to Yahweh and all present that he will not humble himself and acknowledge his sin. Instead, he chooses to align himself with the Serpent and give vent to his enmity against “the woman’s seed” (Gen. 3:15) by murdering his brother Abel (4:8b). From Adam and Eve’s eating of the forbidden fruit sin accelerates to violent fratricide—within one generation!

Next follows the divine inquest. Yahweh confronts Cain and demands, “Where is Abel your brother?” (4:9a).[16] But Cain, unlike his parents, who at least acknowledged their sin (3:12, 13), insolently lies and disclaims responsibility for his brother (4:9b).[17] Therefore, Yahweh issues a charge of wrongdoing,[18] which is followed by a divine curse,[19] paralleling his earlier curse on the Serpent and signaling an extension of the previous curse on the ground (3:17-19; 4:11-12).[20]

Instead of asking for pardon, Cain seeks protection from the consequences of his sin and registers a judicial appeal. Anticipating the potential ramifications of God’s curse sanction, namely, the loss of God’s protection against an avenger of Abel’s death (4:14)[21] Cain complains, “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (4:13).[22] As in the case of Adam and Eve, Yahweh manifests a gracious forbearance and mitigates the punishment. He places Cain under a protective edict by appointing for Cain’s advantage an oath-sign (אוֹת)23 that threatens divinely authorized vengeance on anyone who would take Cain’s life (4:13-14). Both the similarity and also the disparity between God’s dealings with Adam and his dealings with Cain are significant. In God’s primeval curse on the Serpent and on humanity’s earthly life and vocation (3:14-19), Adam apparently detects a note of grace that engenders a response of faith despite the reality of the curse (3:20). Following Adam’s positive response, God mitigates his curse by providing Adam and Eve with clothing to serve as a covering, indicating a divinely initiated expiation of their guilt (3:21). Unlike his father, Cain senses no mercy in Yahweh’s curse and responds with an impenitent grievance (4:13-14). Nevertheless, Yahweh once again mitigates his curse by providing Cain with an oath-bound promise to protect him from the full extent of the punishment he deserves (4:15).[24] In both cases, God shows grace. But Adam’s and Cain’s responses differ, as does the nature of divine grace extended to each. Adam’s response is positive; Cain’s is negative. Correspondingly, God’s sign to Adam and Eve signifies a grace that operates on a different level than the grace he extends to Cain.[25] The former highlights reconciliation. The latter is intended (1) to leave the door open to reconciliation (Rom. 2:4),[26] (2) to teach Adam’s posterity that the redemption of the righteous (Abel) and the punishment of the wicked (Cain) is not always meted out in this life, and (3) to serve as a foil against which all may clearly see not merely the continuation of human sin but rather the progressive degeneracy of Adam’s posterity. For as soon as God communicates his forbearance to Cain, the ungrateful wretch turns on his heel, departs “from the presence of Yahweh, and settle[s] in the land of Nod, east of Eden” (4:16). Hence, Yahweh’s goodness serves to highlight the gravity of human sin in its stark ingratitude and proud refusal to acknowledge God’s benevolent Lordship (see Rom. 1:18-32).

This analysis of Cain’s fall into sin highlights both its similarities and its disparities from the original Fall. The following table provides a more detailed comparison of these two accounts to help the reader conceptualize the downward trajectory of sin and its effects from Adam to Cain:[27]

Table 1: A Comparison of the Falls Inside and Outside the Garden

The Fall Inside the Garden

The Fall Outside the Garden

1. Context: unhindered fellowship with God inside the Garden (2:4-24) 2. Occasion: a temptation that arises from without—the Serpent (2:25; 3:1) 3. Fall: Satan seduces Eve to violate God’s law (3:1-5). The human couple eats the forbidden fruit (3:6). 4. Inquest: Adam and Eve feel guilt and fear (3:7-8). God confronts them with questions to solicit confession and repentance (3:11-13). They blame-shift yet admit their sin (3:12-13). 5. Curse: a direct curse on the Serpent (3:14) but an indirect curse on Adam and Eve (3:16-19) 6. Human response: faith and hope in the promise (3:20; 4:25) 7. Divine mitigation: God provides a covering for guilt—a symbol of special grace (3:21) 8. Expulsion: Adam is driven from inside to outside the Garden to till the ground (3:22-24). Adam accepts his punishment and passes on the knowledge of God to his sons (4:2-4).

1. Context: altar-mediated fellowship with God outside the garden (4:2-4) 2. Occasion: a temptation that arises from within—Cain’s evil heart (4:5-6) 3. Fall: God urges Cain not to violate his law (4:6-7), but Cain premeditatedly murders Abel (4:8). 4. Inquest: Cain does not feel fear or remorse (4:9). God confronts Cain with questions to solicit confession and repentance (4:6-7, 9-10). Cain lies and defiantly refuses responsibility (4:9). 5. Curse: a direct curse on Cain that exceeds the curse that was directed to ground (3:17-19) 6. Human response: self-pity and appeal regarding the punishment (4:13-14) 7. Divine mitigation: God pledges protection of life—an indication of common grace (4:15) 8. Expulsion: Cain is driven farther away from the Garden to wander aimlessly (4:11-12). Cain resists his punishment (4:17) and passes on a negative view of the true God (4:17-24).

As the table above demonstrates, human sin not only moves from the first generation of human beings to the second, but there is a marked increase in sin’s odious nature. What began as a seed planted within the hearts of the primordial man and woman has taken root in the second generation[28] and grown into an ugly weed of human hubris that will rapidly spread throughout the earth, turning what God intended to be a paradisiacal Garden into a howling wasteland of evil and misery. So begins the spread of sin!

A Kingdom to Rival God’s

In Genesis 4:17, Moses begins a new section[29] highlighting several major developments in the human race that resulted from Cain’s exile from Eden. These advances in “civilization” bear witness both to the potency of common grace as well as to the escalation of human sin. The first major development is the commencement of human empire-building. Cain fathers Enoch and initiates the process of urbanization.[30] Both biblical data and extra-biblical evidence suggest that Cain’s motivation for building the city involved three factors. First, Cain probably placed little stock in God’s oath-bound protection edict and therefore built a fortified city for protection,[31] one of the primary purposes for city-building in the ancient Near East.[32] Second, since Cain’s curse entailed wandering aimlessly as a man without a home (4:12b, 14b),[33] his determination to settle (ישׁב) in the land of Nod (“Wandering”!) appears to be a human effort to reverse or override the divine curse.[34] Third, Cain names the city after his son,[35] reflecting an effort to secure an enduring name and dynastic succession.[36] Moses indicates that Cain succeeded in this endeavor by providing a genealogical chronicle of Cain’s kingly successors culminating with the infamous Lamech (4:18), whose exploits not only reflect the image of his ancestor but whose recorded taunt song testifies that the Cain-tradition lives on in his offspring (4:19-24). It would be wrong to conclude from the narrative that all empire-building is inherently evil. As redemptive history unfolds, the reader will discover that Yahweh’s program of empire-building is advanced through the City (i.e., Zion) and the King (i.e., the Son of David). What makes Cain’s project sinful is its secular character[37] and prideful aim,[38] both of which will find their fuller expression in the postdiluvian empire-building on the plains of Shinar (11:1-9).[39] As one ancient writer aptly noted, “Children and the building of a city establish one’s name, but better than either is the one who finds wisdom” (Sirach 40:19a, NRSV). Some within the line of Seth pursued this preferred path of wisdom, developing an empire-building of a different sort—that of re-asserting the interests of Yahweh’s Kingdom (4:26b).

The second major development in the human race resulting from Cain’s exile involved advances in culture, particularly in the areas of the trades, arts, and sciences. Cain’s descendant Lamech fathers three sons, each noted for his contribution to a cultural achievement: Jabel, for his advances in animal breeding (4:20); Jubal, for his contribution to the musical arts (4:21); and Tubal-cain, for his development of metallurgy (4:22). These specific examples of cultural advancement function as a synecdoche, representing cultural development in all other areas of trade, arts, and technology. Moreover, by associating cultural advancement with the descendants of Cain, Moses does not imply that the Sethites or other lines of Adam’s progeny failed to make cultural contributions. Rather, his purpose is to highlight the human potential that common grace makes possible even among the ungodly.[40] Yet it must be admitted that the absence of any hint of true religion among the Cainites is conspicuous,[41] especially when contrasted with the one achievement for which the descendants of Seth are noteworthy, namely, the revival of Yahwehism among the descendants of Seth (4:26b).[42]

The third major development in the human race following Cain’s exile was the alarming escalation of human hubris and tyrannical aggression as epitomized in the seventh successor to Cain. Lamech’s sin underscores the growth of human pride and violence in two striking ways. First, Lamech apparently originated bigamy (which would later burgeon into polygamy) by taking two wives instead of one (4:19) and thereby violating the sacred institution of monogamous marriage (2:18-24). Moses does not indicate whether Lamech’s action was motivated by an unbridled lust for sexual pleasure or by an effort to increase the likelihood of more offspring.[43] In either case, he oversteps the God-given parameters of the creation ordinance and acts autonomously. Second, Lamech violates the sanctity of human life in a way that exceeds the heinous nature of Cain’s murderous deed. Cain killed Abel and attempted to evade responsibility when confronted (4:9). But Lamech artfully gloats about his murderous act (4:23f.).[44] Cain pled for divine leniency and protection (4:13-14), but Lamech assumes Yahweh’s authority and with godlike prerogative places himself under imperial immunity (4:24).[45] So the seven-step progression from Cain to Lamech manifests an unmistakable escalation in hubris and violence.[46]

Another One Bites the Dust

The dreadful taunt of Lamech closes Cain’s line,[47] and Moses transports the reader back in time to the birth of Seth, which marks a renewed hope in God’s redemptive promise (4:25).[48] After noting Seth’s birth, the birth of Seth’s son Enosh, and the revival of Yahwehism (4:26), Moses parallels Cain’s genealogy with a genealogical list beginning with Adam and tracing his lineage through Seth to Noah (5:1-32). Yet in spite of clear parallels,[49] this genealogy differs from the Cainite genealogy in several important ways. First, as already noted, the Genesis 5 genealogy begins with Adam—Cain’s does not.[50] This fact not only reminds the reader that Cain has been banished from the primordial family but may also suggest that Adam preserved the true religion and passed it down through Seth and his seed.[51] Second, the genealogy of Genesis 5 provides chronological information regarding the age of the father at the time he fathered the specified descendant, the number of years he lived after begetting that offspring, and the total length of his earthly life.[52] The unusually long life spans attributed to the antediluvians in this genealogy have led a number of scholars to see the theological motif of divine blessing and human vitality.[53] Hence, while two murderers bracket Cain’s genealogy, emphasizing the motif of premature death, extreme longevity characterizes the Adam-Seth genealogy throughout, emphasizing the theme of fullness of life. Third, while the Cain genealogy features two individuals who inflict death (Cain/Lamech), the Adam-Seth genealogy features an individual who escapes death, namely, Enoch (5:22-24). Finally, the Cain genealogy concludes with an unbeliever (Lamech) whose offspring (Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain) merely advance human culture (4:20-22). But the Adam-Seth genealogy concludes with a believer (another Lamech!) whose offspring (Noah) preserves the human race from extinction (5:29; 6:8ff.). These positive features of the Adam-Seth genealogy in contrast with the negative features of the Cainite genealogy have caused a number of scholars to see either a discontinuation of or a disconnect with the spread of sin theme that has heretofore characterized the primeval narrative since the Fall.[54]

A careful reading of Genesis 5, however, indicates that Moses has not set aside the motif of sin’s spread. Indeed, there are several reasons for viewing the spread of sin as one of the primary themes of this narrative. To begin with, the above-mentioned contrasts between the Cain genealogy and the Adam-Seth genealogy assume an intentionally structured antithetical parallelism, thereby linking this chapter with the preceding narrative. Even a critic such as Walter Brueggemann is forced to admit, “This account follows Genesis 2-4 in the present tradition. Thus, longevity cannot now be attributed to the ‘absence of sin.’”[55]

Second, the narrative begins by noting that God’s conferral of the imago Dei on Seth is mediated through Seth’s father Adam (5:1-2), in whose likeness Seth was born (5:3). The fact that the divine image is now conferred on humanity through Adam suggests that the image is no longer untainted by sin.[56] In the third place, the deafening refrain, “and he died,” which reverberates throughout this entire passage (5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31) reminds the reader of God’s curse on Adam (2:17; 3:19). The fact that Moses chooses the Adam-Seth genealogy rather than the Cain genealogy to scatter these “tombstones”[57] underlines the reality that even those among whom true religion may be found do not escape the gravity of the curse.[58] Of course, there is one exception—“Enoch walked with God, and then he disappeared because God took him away” (5:24, NET).[59] Nevertheless, this exception to the rule provides a fourth argument since it only serves to reinforce the rule. In other words, Enoch’s extraordinary exemption from death’s sting literarily functions to accord death pride of place in the narrative’s plot.[60] Fifthly, every protracted lifespan falls short of the millennial mark, which, as Wenham notes, “is a mere day in the light of God’s eternity.”[61] So even in his “primeval-prime,” man can only attain to a brief moment in the divine reckoning! Sixthly, Lamech’s lament at the close of the narrative (5:29) suggests a keen awareness of the growing burden of sin’s curse from which humanity desperately needs relief. Finally, the narrative concludes with Noah, the “Rest-Giver,” whose calling is to provide deliverance from the curse (5:29).[62]

All these observations lead to the conclusion that the Genesis 5 genealogy plays an integral part in advancing the spread of sin motif commenced in the previous chapter. Far from an interruption of or respite from sin’s doleful encroachment on human life, the Adam-Seth genealogy reminds the reader that God meant business when he warned Adam not to disobey, and his death-threat was not empty—a point not missed by the apostle Paul (Rom. 5:12-14).

The Flood of Human Sin

In Genesis 6, human sin reaches titanic proportions. Sin matured rapidly from the taking of forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6) to the taking of human life (Gen. 4:8). Moreover, Cain’s angry and impenitent recalcitrance grew until his seventh successor, Lamech, displayed a defiant disregard for the sanctity of marriage and human life (4:19, 23-24). But Cain-like rebellion does not end with Lamech. The story of Lamechial arrogance and tyranny resumes in Moses’ commentary on “the Sons of Elohim” (בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים) and their infamous offspring, “the Mighty Warriors” (הַגִּבֹּרִים). After the Genesis 5 genealogy, Moses describes the proliferation of humankind in general and the procreation of female offspring in particular (6:1). Then he observes that the בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים found “the daughters of man” (בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם) to be “attractive [טֹבֹת]” (6:2a). As a result, the בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים “took to themselves wives from all which they desired” (6:2b, author’s translation). The grammatical links between the action described here and human sin in the Garden are unmistakable. Just as Eve “saw” (ראה) that the fruit was “good” (טוֹב) and so “took” (לקח) “from” (מִן) what her heart desired, likewise these בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים “saw” (ראה) that the daughters of men were “attractive” (טוֹב) and so “took” (לקח) “from” (מִן) among them any they chose.[63] Thus, before the reader can reflect on the exact identity of these בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים and the precise nature of their deed, he smells again the stench of Eden’s first transgression.

1. The Titans of Sin Identified

After two millennia of debate,[64] three basic interpretations have emerged concerning who the בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים were and what they did. Some early rabbis, church fathers, and modern interpreters view the “sons of Elohim” as a reference to supernatural beings (angels or demigods), who took human wives, produced semi-divine offspring and thereby fell from their first estate and precipitated God’s judgment on the earth.[65] Thus, the resultant sin has both a human and an angelic dimension—a mingling the Bible forbids (Lev. 19:19; 20:16; Deut. 7:3; 22:9-11). More precisely, the sin involves angels and men transgressing divinely imposed limits, with the latter attempting to attain immortality.[66] A few proponents of this view, sensing the apparent incongruity between rebellion initiated by angelic beings and retribution aimed primarily at humans, either attempt to lay the blame chiefly on “the daughters of men” (or their fathers)[67] or suggest a case of demon possession whereby fallen angels took possession of evil men.[68] A second view, advanced among some of the church fathers[69] and popularized by some of the Reformers,[70] holds that the “sons of God” represent the godly line of Seth and the “daughters of men” represent the sinful line of Cain. Hence, the precise sin in view is that of intermarriage between the righteous and the wicked, resulting in a breakdown of religious beliefs and values, which in turn served to advance the proliferation of evil in the world.[71] Finally, a third position, suggested in some Targums[72] and recently refined by modern scholars acquainted with the divine-kingship ideology of the ancient Near East, interprets the “sons of God” as human rulers who arrogantly assume divine prerogatives.[73] None of the three views is totally free of interpretive challenges. Yet, the immediate and larger canonical context interpreted in light of the current archaeological evidence available favors the third view. The בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים are ancient suzerains who engage in unrestrained polygamy (or even rape!?, 6:2b),[74] build royal harems, and exercise despotic tyranny. Their offspring, the הַגִּבֹּרִים,75 perpetuate their evil, filling the earth with corruption and violence (6:11, 13), and thus earn the epithet, “men of fame [infamy!]” (אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם) (6:4).76 So continues the story of Cain and Lamech, and its tragic plot thickens.

2. The Depths of Sin Sounded

How does Yahweh respond to the rising tide of human sin? Moses depicts the divine response in terms of moral assessment, emotional sensation, and penal/remedial action: “Then Yahweh saw that multiplied [רַבָּה] was the evil of humanity in the earth and every [וְכָל] intention of the thoughts of his heart was altogether [רַק] evil unceasingly [כָּל־הַיּוֹם]”77 (6:5, author’s translation). This theological assessment of human evil underscores the spread of sin in at least three ways. First, it describes sin’s distributive spread among humans. Just as people “began to multiply [לָרֹב] on the face of the land” (6:1a) so sin commensurately multiplied (רַבָּה). Secondly, the verse highlights the inward spread of sin. Not merely the actions of humans but their mental conceptions and volitional affections are tainted and inclined towards evil.[78] Moreover, this inward character of sin is pervasive (וְכָל־יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ)79 and prevailing (רַק רַע).80 Thus, Moses affirms the doctrine of total depravity.[81] Thirdly, 6:5 underscores the durative spread of sin. That is, as God surveys the human landscape, he does not only see intermittent discreet acts of sin but a perpetual habit towards sinful behavior (כָּל־הַיּוֹם). Humankind is thoroughly given over to the sway of evil.[82]

Moses is not content to portray sin’s sway by dissecting man’s rotten heart. He also gives a staggering disclosure of God’s broken heart. Using emotionally charged vocabulary, he depicts Yahweh as feeling regret (וַיִּנָּחֶם) for creating humanity and heart-deep pain (וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל־לִבּוֹ) because of the rebellion of his image-bearers (6:6). In their effort to preserve divine transcendence, some theologians and commentators have emptied the terminology of significance, treating it as anthropopathic metaphor for the incomprehensible God accommodating himself to finite human understanding.[83] But the God that Moses portrays is not apathetic to the human condition.[84] On the contrary, in response to man’s change from very good (1:31) to very evil (6:5), Yahweh genuinely feels a mixture of extreme disappointment and anger, which in turn produces a profound heart-felt sorrow, something any reader who has felt the pangs of the curse can to some degree identify with.[85] This exposure of emotional turbulence within the heart of an infinite, eternal, unchangeable God is one of the greatest indicators of the colossal proportions of human sin.[86]

But there is more. Moses’ reference to Yahweh’s seeing (6:5a; see also 6:11-12) and indeed feeling (6:6; see also 6:7b) the profoundly sinful human condition serves as a harbinger of divine action. Thus, God’s perception and passion portrayed in 6:5-6 lead reflexively to his response of judgment and grace portended in 6:7-8.[87] Because the spread of human sin has reached such extreme proportions, God now must erase the moral filth from off the face of the earth with a universal flood (6:7, 13ff.).[88] After many centuries, his divine forbearance now approaches its limit (6:3).[89] The tidal wave of human hubris brings a deluge of divine wrath. The worldwide scope of this judgment[90] is another factor that underscores the epidemic spread of human sin. Nor does God’s mercy to one family lessen the enormity and extensiveness of humanity’s wickedness. Rather God’s act of saving grace towards Noah (6:8, 13-21; 8:1, 15-17; 9:1ff.), as in the case of Enoch (5:24), is an exception that only reinforces the rule. Thus, with the broad strokes of human depravity, divine emotivity, and universal judgment, Moses paints a dark portrait of the invasive and pervasive spread of sin.

A New Beginning Spoiled by Sin

Yahweh’s pained heart is soothed when he smells the aroma of the burnt offerings wafting from Noah’s altar (8:20-21a). In response, God pledges never again to destroy the world with a flood but to provide a stable environment in which he will bring to fruition his redemptive plans for humanity (8:21b-22; 9:1-17). Yet, an ominous note sounds among an otherwise harmonious chorus of divine goodness. Yahweh’s covenant promise is made “even though [כִּי]91 every inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from childhood” (8:21b, NIV). This concessive clause indicates that though the Deluge washed away sinners, it failed to eradicate sin. Regrettably, Noah and his family imported the sin from the world-that-then-was to the world-that-now-is. That tragic reality quickly unfolds.

Noah, portrayed as a New Adam in a New World with a renewed mandate to subdue the earth,[92] becomes the father of viticulture (9:30). But Noah abuses one of God’s gifts to mankind,[93] transgressing the limits of moderation, and becomes intoxicated (9:21a).[94] Worse, drunken Noah disrobes in his tent (9:21b)[95] and provides an occasion for a greater sin. Noah’s son Ham gazes at (וַיַּרְא) his father’s nakedness. Then he tells Shem and Japheth (9:22), who go into their father’s tent not to see (לֹא רָאוּ) but to cover their father’s nakedness (9:23). Since the brothers’ covering of Noah parallels Yahweh’s covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness (3:21), the reader is led to evaluate their action positively and Ham’s negatively. This is how Noah, once awake and sober, evaluates the actions of his sons (9:24-27). Fundamentally, Ham’s sin is an intentional act of contempt accompanied by a mocking disclosure to his brothers—both actions the original audience would interpret as blatant violations of the fifth commandment (Exod. 20:12).[96] Whether perverted sexual curiosity prompted Ham to intrude into Noah’s private quarters to gaze on his nude body can only be conjectured.[97] Interpretations that construe Ham’s deed as a scandalous sexual crime go beyond the textual and contextual data.[98] But keeping in view Noah’s public devotion to Yahweh (6:9; 8:20) and his prophetic office as a preacher of righteousness (1 Pet. 3:18-20; 2 Pet. 2:5), Ham’s contempt for his father may also be viewed as contempt for his father’s religion and his father’s God.[99]

So a “Cain,” an offspring of the serpent, has been discovered among Noah’s family. And as Cain and his descendants inherited Cain’s father’s (i.e., the Serpent) curse (3:14-15; 4:11-12), so must Canaan and his offspring inherit his father’s (i.e., Ham) curse. Thus Noah curses Ham’s descendants, the sons of Canaan,[100] consigning their destiny to abject servitude (9:25),[101] while blessing Shem and Japheth, who shall become lords over the Canaanites (9:26-27). Yet, long before the Noachian curse begins to find its initial fulfillment, Ham’s contempt for the true religion represented by Noah will grow to mammoth proportions that rival the hubris of the בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים and their offspring, הַגִּבֹּרִים.

The Kingdom of Man Rebuilt

Following God’s reestablishment of the primeval covenant with Noah (6:18) and its mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (9:1ff.), we see what at first appears to be mankind’s obedient response to that mandate. What is known as the Table of Nations recounts the dispersal of Noah’s descendants across the face of the earth after the flood (9:18-19; 10:1-32).[102] Two individuals from the list of descendants as well as activities associated with each are singled out for special attention—Nimrod, a descendant of Ham through Cush (10:6-8a), and Peleg, a descendant of Shem through Eber (10:21-25a). Nimrod, whose name possibly derives from the Hebrew verb “to rebel” (מרד),103 is associated with an empire-building enterprise that began in the land of Shinar and eventually engulfed much of Mesopotamia (10:10-12). Peleg, whose name derives from the Hebrew verb “to divide” (פלג), is associated with an event in which the earth is divided (נִפְלְגָה הָאָרֶץ) (10:25b). The somewhat enigmatic references to these individuals and the activities associated with them are more fully explained in the infamous “Tower of Babel” story (11:1-9). Here the reader discovers that humanity’s apparently obedient response to the divinely commissioned dispersal (9:1) was in fact, by and large, reluctant acquiescence to divine judgment.[104]

Most (perhaps all) of Noah’s descendants[105] had initially migrated from Ararat to the land of Shinar “where they settled [וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם]” (11:2, author’s translation). Not only is the fact of their “settling down” unsettling (in light of the mandate to “fill the earth,” 9:1), but the eastward (מִקֶּדֶם) location of their colony is troubling also. Settling in the east signals a Cain-like movement away from God (see 4:16). These people are up to no good. To be more precise, they are up to “No! God.” Like Cain of old they fear impermanence and choose to defy Yahweh’s mandate by building a city that will not only provide security but also secure for them a lasting “name” (compare 4:17 with 11:3-4).[106] What is more, these postdiluvian city-builders will outdo Cain. They will construct their own Holy Mountain,[107] their own Eden,[108] and thereby autonomously attempt to “reenter” the sphere from which man had been earlier banished (3:22-24) through their own Gate of God.[109] With a common language[110] that facilitates their monumental efforts (11:1), these rebels actually begin to storm the stratosphere with their “stairway to heaven.”

But as Jan Fokkelman wryly remarks, “Those who want to ride on clouds must reckon with cloud-bursts; God stands no nonsense.”[111] So, even as “the sons of Adam” (בְּנֵי הָאָדָם)112 toil away in their attempt to scale heaven, Heaven comes down (ירד) to investigate their tower-building efforts (11:5).[113] Yahweh is not amused. What he “discovers”[114] is the same alarming grasp for divinity that motivated the primordial couple to take the forbidden fruit—only this time on an international scale (11:6)![115] Therefore, divine resolve counters human resolve.[116] In a stroke of judgment that is both ironic and talionic, God punishes them with “a name for a name.” They lusted for meaning apart from God, but such godless schemes can only end in nonsense.[117] So by divine decree, the coveted “Babel” becomes “Babble”![118] Thus, Yahweh obstructs what they seek to construct by disrupting their ability to communicate (11:7). As a result, the ecumenical effort comes to a screeching halt, and the vertical movement turns horizontal. Formerly linguistically united, the builders now become dialectally fragmented. Dropping trowel and spade, the people scatter “over all the face of the earth,” just as Yahweh willed (11:8-9).

Now the reader sees the Table of Nations not as a memorial to human fidelity but as a memorial to a divine overruling of human infidelity. Understanding “the division” of Peleg’s day (10:25b),[119] he trembles as he recalls the exploits of Nimrod! For “the beginning [רֵאשִׁית] of his kingdom was Babel … in the land of Shinar” (10:10). Whether or not Nimrod was the mastermind behind the original Babel venture, the list of city-building projects originating from Babel, spreading through Shinar and extending into northern Mesopotamia,[120] leaves the reader with an ominous impression: Nimrod did not take God’s “no” seriously. Defying Yahweh’s vision for human decentralization and divine exaltation, Nimrod decided with relentless persistence to revive and rebuild fortified cities and skyscraping towers.[121] In an effort to advance Man’s kingdom in place of God’s kingdom, he became a postdiluvian version (גִּבֹּר, 10:8) of the tyrannical antediluvian הַגִּבֹּרִים well earning the ignominious epithet that became a proverbial saying in Israel, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord” (10:9).[122] So the spirit of Cain lives on. The “seed of the Serpent” strikes again, and thus continues the spread of sin.

At this point it will be helpful to compare recurring patterns that highlight the spread of sin theme. Building on the insights of others[123] and drawing from the observations of this study, the following table illustrates recurrent literary patterns throughout the primeval narrative that lead from sin to judgment.

Table 2: Thematic Pattern of Sin—Discovery—Speech—Mitigation—Judgment
 

	Sin	Discovery	Speech	Mitigation	Judgment
The Fall	3:6	3:8-13	3:14-19	3:21	3:22-24
Cain & Abel	4:8	4:9-10	4:11-12	4:15	4:16
The Flood	6:2, 4-5, 10	6:5-6, 11	6:3, 7, 13-21	6:8, 18-21	7:6-24
Babel	11:4	11:5-6	11:7	10:1-32; 11:[9]10-12:3	11:8-9

As this table demonstrates, repeated outbreaks of human sin have served as a major theme in the primeval narrative. Indeed, the grave and gargantuan character of human unbelief and pride only becomes more apparent as the story unfolds. But “He who sits in the heavens” will have the last laugh (Ps. 2:4). Even as Nimrod and his successors wearied themselves building cities and gaining renown, God quietly bided his time until a descendant of Shem[124] should arise through the line of none other than Peleg (11:10-26)! One who was born in the days when God divided the families of the earth would father an offspring (Abram) through whom a people from “every nation and tribe and language” would someday unite with divine blessing in a City whose Architect is God and under a Name above all other names (Gen. 12:1-3; Phil. 2:9-10). Where sin abounds, grace shall much more abound! But not all at once. Not quite yet. The saga of sin’s spread has been a major theme in primeval history. As the remainder of this study will demonstrate, that theme continues throughout patriarchal history.[125] Genesis is, after all, the beginning, not the end of the story.

Notes

1. In the words of Henri Blocher, “Sin proliferates along with mankind. It takes on new aspects as human life develops in new directions.” In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 197.
2. The drama of redemptive history always assumes human sin as its backdrop. Consequently, a proper analysis of both primeval and patriarchal history as revealed in the Genesis narrative must include a focus on the spread of sin motif in order to fully appreciate God’s grace.
3. Eve’s reference to her firstborn child as “a man [אִישׁ]” rather than “a child [יֶלֶד]” has suggested to some commentators that she may have viewed Cain as the promised “offspring” of the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) or at least the progenitor of that future redeemer. See Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis 1-5, trans. George V. Schick, LW, 1:249; G. Ch. Aalders, Genesis, trans. William Heynen, Bible Student’s Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 118-19; C. F. Keil, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, vol. 1 of Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 108-09. Following this line of thought, P. A. H. de Boer has suggested that the preposition אֶת be emended to the noun אֹת [אוֹת] and the clause translated, “I have gained a man, the sign of the Lord.” Nederlands theologisch tijdshrift 31 (1942): 197-212. Whether Eve’s speech at Cain’s birth is an evidence of true faith in the divine promise is not beyond doubt. More plausible evidence of Eve’s saving faith will appear when she responds to Seth’s birth (see below).
4. It is highly likely that the original Israelite reader would have viewed the acts of Cain and Abel as acts of worship. Outside the Garden there is still fellowship with God, but that fellowship is mediated through an altar and special offerings.
5. As Herman J. Austel observes, “The basic idea of shäʾà is ‘to look at with interest.’ It is never a casual or disinterested glance.”שֶָׁעָה (shäʾà) look at, look to, regard,” TWOT, 2:944-45.
6. Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), 43. Gunkel, who assigns the Cain and Abel story as well as the Genesis 2 narrative to J, seems to forget that it was Yahweh who planted a Garden and assigned Adam the task of working and keeping it (Gen. 2:15).
7. Studies in Genesis (1868; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1979), 94.
8. See Bruce K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ) 48 (1986): 363-62. Such a conclusion is consonant with the NT writer’s assessment of Abel’s offering, namely, that it evidences genuine faith and devotion to God (Heb. 11:4) in contrast to Cain’s, which manifests an absence of faith and devotion (1 John 3:12).
9. The Lord confronts Cain with a series of rhetorical questions: “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted?” Just as in God’s earlier judicial interrogation of Adam and Eve, these questions were designed not to solicit information but to elicit confession and repentance (see Gen. 3:9, 11, 13).
10. Noting the difference in gender agreement between the feminine noun חַטָּאת and the masculine participle רֹבֵץ, Ephraim Speiser attempts to link the participle to the Akkadian word räbicum, meaning “demon.” In this case, God is warning Cain that sin is a “demon at the door.” Genesis, vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1964), 33. One might follow this suggestion and view the “demon at the door” as a reference to Satan, a historical referent that became corrupted over time into a superstitious notion among pagan cultures of benevolent or malevolent “door demons.” The verb רֹבֵץ, however, is used elsewhere in Genesis to describe a crouching lion (49:9). And feminine abstract nouns may sometimes take masculine verbs. See Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC), ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), § 122r; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (IBHS) (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 6.6b. Thus, the language appears metaphorical, portraying sin as an animal lying in wait to pounce upon its victim.
11. The noun describing sin’s “desire” for Cain (i.e., תְּשׁוּקָה) may be used for an appropriate desire (Song 7:10 [Heb. 11]). But with sin as the subject in Genesis 4:7, the connotation is negative: sin (personified) wants possession of Cain’s soul. For the lexical, syntactical, and semantic links between this verse and 3:14a, see Susan T. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
12. The Bible often warns against sinful anger (Prov. 27:4; Eccl. 7:9; Eph. 4:26, 31) and portrays it as the seed that gives rise to murder (Matt. 5:21-26; James 1:15).
13. This would explain the seeming laconic reference, וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל־הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיְהִי. Note that the MT does not provide the content of Cain’s message to Abel. The LXX supplies the words διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον (“let us pass through into the plain”), and a number of English translations follow suit (NIV, NET, NJB, NLT, CSB). It is possible that the LXX has preserved the original text, which was somehow dropped from the MT. But the MT’s omission may have been intentional and in turn may have prompted the conflation found in the LXX and other ancient texts (Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, Syriac).
14. Charles Briggs sees the enmity between Cain and Abel as a fulfillment of the Genesis 3:15 prophecy and suggests the serpent will strike the woman’s seed “in secret and in treachery, behind the back.” Messianic Prophecy: The Prediction of the Fulfillment of Redemption Through the Messiah (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1886), 71.
15. Most commentators overlook the reference to “the door” or take it figuratively and include it as part of the metaphor (i.e., “the door of Cain’s heart”). But the fact that Yahweh dialogues with Cain and that Cain later departs from Yahweh’s “presence” (4:16) would seem to imply that God appeared to Cain and Abel in a theophany, as he did to Adam and Eve in the Garden (3:8-21). Moreover, the common phenomena of sanctuaries or temples throughout the ancient Near East that predate the Sinai instructions for a tent-sanctuary suggest some primeval prototype. If “the door” in Genesis 4:7 implies a literal sanctuary enclosure, then Cain’s departure through the door without acknowledging his guilt would have publicly signified his refusal to repent.
16. As noted above, the divine interrogatives are intended to elicit repentance (Gen. 3:9, 11, 13; 4:6-7a). “Where is Abel your brother?” carries the same intent.
17. Gerhard von Rad perceives the defiant tone in Cain’s response when he writes, “Cain gets rid of this difficult question, which graciously offered him opportunity to confess his deed (Zi.), with an impertinent witticism: Shall I shepherd the shepherd? He lies impertinently directly to God’s face, [sic] is therefore much more hardened than were the first human pair.” Genesis: A Commentary, 2nd ed., trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 106.
18. “What have you done?” functions here and elsewhere in Genesis as a formal accusation of a crime committed (Gen. 3:13; 12:18; 20:9; 26:10; 29:25; 31:26; 44:15).
19. As Allen Ross observes, “The Lord’s speech moves instantly from accusation to judgment, as if the insolent answer that Cain had given indicated there would be no confession forthcoming.” Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 160.
20. In chapter 3, God directly curses the serpent (אָרוּר אַתָּה, v. 14) and indirectly curses the man by cursing the ground (אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה, v. 17). Here God directly curses Cain (אָרוּר אָתָּה). Accordingly, Waltke concludes, “God now links Cain with the serpent in the cursed state (3:14).” Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 98. The prepositional phrase “from the ground [מִן־הָאֲדָמָה]” reminds the reader of the מִן preposition in the curse on the serpent: אָרוּר אַתָּה מִכָּל־הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה. Some argue that the מִן preposition should be understood in the ablative sense, “designating movement away from a specified beginning point” (IBHS § 11.2.11b). Thus, as God banished the serpent from the other animals, so he banished Cain from the fertile soil. See Herbert Chanan Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Monograph Series, Vol. XIII (Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963). On the other hand, one may interpret the מִן preposition in Gen. 3:14 as a comparative marker (IBHS § 11.211e), denoting a comparison of degree, i.e., “cursed are you more than” (IBHS § 14.4d) or a comparison of exclusion, i.e., “cursed are you rather than” (IBHS § 14.4e). If Cain’s curse is parallel to the Serpent’s, then either God has cursed Cain instead of the ground or God has cursed Cain more than the already cursed ground. The latter option makes better sense here. In any case, God’s curse upon Cain is graver than his judgment upon Adam and has intensified the already existing curse upon mankind in general. See John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis (Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2003), 1:148; von Rad, Genesis, 106; Ross, 160.
21. Somehow Cain intuitively anticipates a talionic response (i.e., life for life) from one of his kinsmen. Harry Buis is correct when he notes, “Not only Special Revelation but also the conscience of man is deeply imbued with the conviction that a man will be punished according to his deeds.” “Retribution,” ZPEB, 5:84.
22. The LXX translates the Hebrew עֲוֹנִי with ἡ αἰτία μου, which can refer either to an accusation or verdict of wrong doing (Matt. 27:37; Acts 25:28; 28:20) or to the basis or ground of an accusation, i.e., guilt or blameworthiness (Luke 23:4; John 18:38; 19:4, 6; Acts 13:28; 23:28; 28:18). The LXX would seem to favor the latter since it uses the verb ἀφεθῆναί (“to be forgiven”) to translate the Hebrew מִֶנְּשֹׂא, which can mean “to bear” or “to forgive.” Similarly, the Vulgate translates the noun with iniquitas and the verb with the phrase ut veniam merear (“to merit pardon”). Hence, the Douay-Rhiems Bible renders the verse, “My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.” Cassuto supports this interpretation when he asserts that “as a rule” the terms עָוֹן and נשׂא when used together refer to the idea “to forgive iniquity.” A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 222. Despite the witness of these early versions and the opinion of Cassuto, the majority of modern translators and commentators are correct in interpreting עֲוֹנִיas “punishment” and מִֶנְּשֹׂא as “to bear.” First of all, the Hebrew infinitive is active in contrast to the passive rendering in the LXX. Second, the terms עָוֹן and נשׂא, when used together, do not always or even predominantly mean, “to forgive iniquity.” Just as frequently (if not more often) they refer to the bearing of guilt, responsibility, or punishment (Exod. 28:43; Lev. 5:1, 17; 7:18; 17:16; 19:8; 20:17, 19; 22:16; Num. 5:31; Num. 14:34; 18:1, 23; 30:16; Ezek. 4:4, 5, 6, 10; 18:19, 20; 44:10, 12). Third, nowhere in the surrounding context does Cain appear to reflect genuine contrition and a desire for forgiveness. In light of the fact (1) that Cain defies God’s punishment by settling down and building a city (4:16-17), (2) that there appears to be no trace of true religion preserved in Cain’s lineage (4:17-24), and (3) that Cain’s descendants manifest his evil recalcitrance to a greater degree (4:23-24), the depiction of Cain entreating God forgiveness is tenuous.
23. Most interpreters identify the אוֹת as a physical mark that Yahweh places on Cain’s body in order to visibly identify him. This interpretation has led to speculation about the nature of “the mark.” According to a number of lexicographers and commentators, the אוֹת on Cain was some form of bodily tattoo. See F. Stolz, “אוֹת ʾôt sign,” TLOT, 1:68; Gunkel, 46-47; Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 35; von Rad, Genesis,107; Waltke, Genesis, 99. However, the noun sign need not always refer to something visible. For example, Rahab requests an אוֹת from the Israelite spies (Josh. 2:12). Her “give me a sure sign [וּנְתַתֶּם]” parallels “please swear to me [הִשָּׁבְעוּ־נָא לִי].” The spies respond to Rahab’s entreaty for an tAa with an oath-bound promise to spare her and her family (Josh. 2:14). See C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel,” trans. James Martin, vol. 2 of Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 1:37. This less common meaning for אוֹת would make better sense in Gen. 4:15b. SeeMeredith G. Kline, “The Oracular Origin of the State,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, ed. G. A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1978), 138-39.
24. Notes Derek Kidner, “God’s concern for the innocent (10) is matched only by His care for the sinner. Even the querulous prayer of Cain had contained a germ of entreaty; God’s answering pledge, together with His mark or sign (the same word as in 9:13; 17:11)—not a stigma but a safe-conduct—is almost a covenant, making Him virtually Cain’s Göʿël or protector; cf. 2 Samuel 14:14b, AV, RV. It is the utmost that mercy can do for the unrepentant.” Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), 76.
25. Theologians have traditionally distinguished these two species of grace as special grace and common grace. For a fuller development of these two facets of divine grace and their relationship to each other, see Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972).
26. “Why does the Lord’s anger not burn against Cain? Undoubtedly it did. But though capital punishment was the way God directed Israel to respond to murder cases, it is not always the way God chooses (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 11-12). Already we see a God who holds justice in his right hand and mercy in his left.” John Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary, ed. Terry Muck (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 271.
27. The writer has adapted and expanded Terence E. Fretheim’s helpful structural comparison of the narratives of Gen. 3:1-24 and Gen. 4:1-16 in Creation, Fall and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1969), 93-94. For a similar but simpler structural comparison, see Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 303, and Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 99.
28. For a helpful assessment of the primeval narrative’s contribution to the doctrine of original or hereditary sin, see Gordon Wenham, “Original Sin in Genesis 1-11,” Churchman 104:4 (1990): 309-28.
29. Genesis 4 can be divided into three sections (4:1-16; 17-24; 25-26), each beginning with the phrase “X knew Y, and she [conceived and] bore Z.” C. John Collins makes this observation in his book Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2006), 191-92.
30. Technically, the antecedent of “and he was building” could be Enoch, making Cain’s son the city builder rather than his father. This reading is favored by Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 326-27, and Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 111. However, such a reading would require an emendation of the text as the present construction of the text identifies “Enoch” as the son after whom the city is named. Hence, the text favors Cain as the original architect and builder.
31. Victor Hamilton suggests that “Cain’s act of city building is an attempt to provide security for himself, a security he is not sure that God’s mark guarantees.” The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 238.
32. Archaeological data as well as Biblical evidence indicates that many of the ancient cities were characterized by large fortified walls and often built in strategic locations to render the citizens less vulnerable to foreign invaders. Because of migration and territorial boundary disputes, “massive fortifications were constructed, which both defined the boundary between rural and urban space and restricted points of entry.” Elizabeth C. Stone, “The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (CANE), ed. Jack M. Sasson (1995; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 1:235-48; See also Amthai Mazar, “The Fortifications of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in CANE, 3:1523-37; J. M. Houston, “City,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975-76), 1:873-80; John E. Stambaugh, “Cities,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:1031-48. Lev. 25:31 contrasts smaller villages with “walled” cities. There are also references to “walls,” “towers,” and “gates” of cities as features of fortification (Num. 13:28; Deut. 3:5; Josh. 2:5, 15; 6:5; Judg. 9:51; 2 Sam. 18:33; Neh. 3:1-3, 11, 25).
33. The Hebrew expressions— וָנָדand נָע (4:12, 14) are roughly synonymous and may be translated as an hendiadys: “a restless wanderer” (NIV) or “a homeless wanderer” (NET). See Ross, Creation & Blessing, 160.
34. Mathews agrees. “Cain’s action is in direct violation to the injunction of God that restricted him to the life of a vagabond” Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1a of The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 284-85. Waltke combines the first two of Cain’s motivations when he remarks, “The city functions as an anodyne to wandering and alienation and as a protection against human irrationality and retaliation.” Genesis, 99-100. See also Ross, Creation & Blessing, 166-67.
35. The name “Enoch” (חֲנוֹךְ) is probably related to the verb חנך, which often refers to an official ceremony of inauguration or consecration (Deut. 20:5; 1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron. 7:5). See Jackie A. Naudé, “חנך (hnk),” NIDOTTE, 2:200-01. In light of the basic meaning of the verb, Kidner suggests that Cain’s naming of his first son and first city “Enoch” signified his intention to start a new beginning (77). Franz Delitzsch similarly remarks, “The son and the city were together the beginning of a new epoch.” A New Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor (New York: Scribner & Welford, 1889), 1:191.
36. Naming a city after oneself or one’s son implies ownership and lordship over that city, establishing the legal basis for dynastic succession (Deut. 3:14; 2 Sam. 5:9; 12:28). See Frank S. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 36 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 41. The parallel between the antediluvian genealogies (4:17-15; 5:1-32) and ancient Mesopotamian pre-Deluge king lists may suggest a kind of dynastic succession (at least on a tribal level) reflected in the Genesis primeval genealogies. See “The Sumerian King List,” trans. A. Leo Openheim, in James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 265-66; Thorkild Jacobson, The Sumerian King List (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939), 58-59.
37. In this context, the writer is not using the term “secular” in the absolute sense of describing a civilization without any form of religion. As the apostle Paul notes, even unregenerate humanity can “maintain the outward appearance of religion” (2 Tim. 3:5, NET). The “religion” of ungodly culture, however, exchanges “the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Rom. 1:21-23). And “since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind [that is, a mind devoid of a saving knowledge of God]” (Rom. 1:28, NET). In this sense, Cain’s empire-building was secular.
38. Jacques Ellul captures the spirit of Cain’s empire-building well: “In Cain’s eyes it is not a beginning again, but a beginning. God’s creation is seen as nothing. God did nothing and in no case did he finish anything. Now a start is made, and it is no longer God beginning but man. And thus Cain digs a little deeper the abyss between himself and God.” The Meaning of the City, trans. Dennis Pardee (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970), 6.
39. Kline notes the connection when he writes, “The account of Babel’s founding, like that of Cain’s city, begins with a reference to expelled mankind wandering in the east (Gen 11:2; cf. 4:16).” Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 273. Waltke observes, “The earthly city provides both civilization and protection but culminates in 11:4 in the building of a city that challenges God’s supremacy.” Genesis, 99. See also Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 273.
40. Moses “expressly celebrates the remaining benediction on that race, which otherwise would have been deemed void and barren of all good,” says John Calvin. “Let us then know, that the sons of Cain, though deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, were yet endued with gifts of no despicable kind; just as the experience of all ages teaches us how widely the rays of divine light have shone on unbelieving nations, for the benefit of the present life.” Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 1:218.
41. Warren Gage notes, “The τέχνη of Cain’s descendants is remarkable in its similarity to the skills required to erect the tabernacle in the wilderness. In Jabal they have their tents, but no tent of meeting. In Jubal they have their pipes, but no psalms to sing. In Tubal-cain they have their craftsmen, but no tabernacle to furnish. Such is the nature of urban man (Cf. the τέχνη of Babylon, Rev. 18:22).” The Gospel of Genesis: Studies in Protology and Eschatology (1986; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001), 59, n. 52. Matthew Henry draws the following lesson: “That worldly things are the only things that carnal wicked people set their hearts upon and are most ingenious and industrious about. So it was with the impious race of cursed Cain. Here was a father of shepherds and a father of musicians, but not a father of the faithful. Here was one to teach in brass and iron, but none to teach the good knowledge of the Lord. Here were devices how to be rich, and how to be mighty and how to be merry, but nothing of God.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible (reprint, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.), 1:145.
42. As the cultural achievements of the Cainites point to the potential made possible by common grace, so the religious revival among the Sethites points to the redemptive potential made possible by special grace, and it serves to distinguish the “seed of the woman” from the “seed of the Serpent” by a concern to advance what matters most in human culture, namely, true religion.
43. Though the barrenness of a man’s wife could sometimes lead to the temptation of acquiring another (Gen. 16:1-4), this “excuse” is not available to Lamech since the account indicates that both his wives bore him children (4:20-22).
44. Blocher poignantly remarks, “This is the second human poem in the text of Genesis, and what a contrast it makes with the first one, the lover’s greeting before the fall (Gen. 2:23)! Lamech’s poetry oozes hatred. The comparison with Cain’s words is instructive, marking human progress on the path of violence. Just as Lamech is more ‘civilized,’ able to forge weapons with which to deliver his ‘seventy-fold’ blows, so also he possesses the art of words and of phrases to express brutality.” (199). Stephen G. Dempster notes, “The first genealogical list of the Bible (Gen. 4:17-24) … is an ‘anti-genealogy’ (Robinson 1989: 600), since it begins with Cain, the brother-killer, and ends with the child killer, Lamech [whose] boastful taunt to his wives at the conclusion of this first family tree reveals a man of titanic arrogance and heartless cruelty.” Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003), 70.
45. Lamech’s poem parallels Cain’s divinely pledged edict of protection with Lamech’s autonomously presumed edict of protection. Von Rad appropriately observes, “Lamech’s defiant demand reaches into Yahweh’s own domain.” Genesis, 112. Von Rad goes on to suggest that Christ’s teaching regarding a seventy-fold forgiveness may have been a conscious retort to Lamech’s bold taunt.
46. Several scholars note this progression (or rather degeneration). Von Rad, for example, concludes, “The Song of Lamech is the third section of the primeval history which Moses emphasizes. It is a story of the increase in sin and the more and more profound disturbance of the original orders of life with which it goes hand in hand. First the Fall, then fratricide, and now the execution of vengeance (which God has reserved for himself!) is claimed by man.” Genesis, 111-12. Fretheim observes, “Progress in sin and its effects matches the progress in civilization.” “Genesis,” in vol. 1 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 375. Donald Gowan remarks, “[The genealogy of Cain] reveals a streak of increasing violence running alongside all these important human accomplishments. The Song of Lamech completes the Cain story with the return to killing.” From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1-11, International Theological Commentary, ed. Fredrick Carlson Holmgren and George A. F. Knight (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 74.
47. It will be argued below that Moses resumes the story of Cain’s line (as well as Seth’s) in Gen. 6:1ff., where he continues to trace the spread of sin and its effects throughout the human race.
48. Eve names the child “Seth” (שֵׁת), which phonetically resembles the verb שׁית that God uses in Gen. 3:15, where he declares, “I will set [אָשִׁית] enmity between [the Serpent] and the woman” (author’s translation). Then Eve gives her reason for the child’s name: “For Elohim has set for me [שָׁת־לִי אֱלֹהִים] another seed [זֶרַע אַחֵר] in place of Abel whom Cain killed” (Gen. 4:25, author’s translation). Here, Eve appears to allude to the promise of the special זֶרַע in Genesis 3:15. Dempster agrees and remarks, “Immediately after the genealogy, Eve has another ‘seed’ that replaces his slain brother, Abel (Gen. 4:25, 26). In the context, this reference to the replacement of the seed instantly resonates with Genesis 3:15 and represents an implicit hope that Eve has for this child to relieve the earth from the curse imposed on it” (71). Eve’s use of the perfect “has appointed” may be interpreted and translated as the precative perfect or “perfect of prayer”: “May God appoint for me another seed in place of Abel!” (IBHS 30.5.4c-d).
49. Both genealogies are primarily vertical or linear (i.e., connecting an individual to an ancestor) and become horizontal or segmented at the end (i.e., listing several siblings or relatives of a particular ancestor). There is also a similarity between the names of Cain’s ancestors and those of Seth. Finally, in each genealogy Moses gives special treatment to the seventh from Adam.
50. For this reason, the author prefers to view the Genesis 5 narrative as the “Adam-Seth genealogy” rather than the more common “Sethite genealogy.”
51. That true religion was revived and passed down through Seth’s lineage is clearly indicated in the text (see 4:26; 5:22-24, 28-28). Moreover, Moses has already highlighted believing responses in Adam (3:20) and Eve (4:25).
52. The consistent pattern is “When X lived ___ years, he fathered Y. X lived after he fathered Y ___ years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of X were ___ , and he died.” Only this genealogy and that in Genesis 11 provide these seemingly unbroken chronological links. For a survey of different approaches to interpreting the chronological information provided in these genealogies and defense of a traditional approach, see Benjamin Shaw, “The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and their Significance for Chronology” (Ph.D. diss.; Bob Jones University, 2004).
53. Hamilton writes, “The genealogy of this chapter and the transmission of the divine image may be one way in which the writer is stressing his point about the operations of divine grace” (256). Mathews argues that one of its theological functions is “to show the perpetuation of the imago Dei and blessing (1:26-28)” (305). Commenting on the chronological data for the antediluvians in the Genesis 5 genealogy, Benjamin Warfield asserts, “All these items cooperate to make a vivid impression upon us of the vigor and grandeur of humanity in those old days of the world’s prime.” “Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race,” in Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1968), 244.
54. Some conservative scholars, focusing on the amazing longevity of the Sethites, emphasize the theme of God’s blessing and grace. C. F. Keil, for instance, writes, “In the genealogy of the Cainites no ages are given, since this family, as being cursed by God, had no future history. On the other hand, the family of Sethites, which acknowledged God, began from the time of Enos to call upon the name of the Lord, and was therefore preserved and sustained by God, in order that under the training of mercy and judgment the human race might eventually attain to the great purpose of its creation” (1:120-21). Likewise, H. C. Leupold agrees with Luther that the Sethites “were the very greatest heroes who ever came upon earth barring Christ and John the Baptist” and supports this reading by noting that “in point of longevity their strength and natural vigor far excelled that of later generations,” concluding that “they represented a less decayed stage of human life.” Leupold adds, as a contributing factor to their longevity, his conviction that “here is a race of godly men who lived temperately and sanely.” Leupold acknowledges that the deaths of these patriarchs points to “God’s justice and wrath against sin,” but he believes the message of Genesis 5 is “where sin prevails, grace does the more prevail.” Exposition of Genesis (1941; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 230-36. Thus, these commentators appear to see a discontinuation of the spread of sin theme as the reader transitions from Genesis 4 to 5. On the other hand, critical scholars posit a disconnection between these chapters. They see “J” (Yahwist) as the author or final redactor behind the Cainite genealogy, whose purpose is to emphasize the theme of sin or crime. The author or final redactor of the Genesis 5 genealogy is “P” (Priestly writer), whose purpose is to emphasize the fulfillment of the creation mandate and divine blessing. See John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, The International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, C. A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), 129; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2005), 1:154-56).
55. Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 68.
56. This point is noted by Brueggemann when he observes, “Verse 3 contains an odd ambiguous statement about Seth, the father of humankind. It is not said he is the image of God, but in the image of Adam, who is the image of God. Thus, he is one step removed. This might mean he continues to be the image of God, for the image of God is granted not only to the first human but also to all humans. But such an assertion is hedged, for the image of Adam is something less, and marred (cf. Gen. 3). Thus, the text may realistically recognize that Seth and his heirs are a strange, unresolved mixture of the regal image of God and the threatened image of Adam” (68). Currid agrees and writes, “Seth receives the likeness of God as it has been passed through his father Adam. It is a nature that is twisted, frail, mortal and miserable. The imputation of Adam’s nature to his descendants is thus recorded” (1:162).
57. This is John Davis’s catchy term for the death notices. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 106.
58. John Murray remarks, “Death. How eloquently this is advertised in Genesis 5! Notwithstanding the longevity of man, he cannot escape the fulfillment of the divine threat, and must prove that the wages of sin is death.” Collected Writings of John Murray, ed. Iain Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 2:72. David J. A. Clines comments, “No reader of Genesis 5, to take one example, fails to be impressed by the recurrent phrase ‘And he died,’ which baldly and emphatically concludes the entry for each of these antediluvians. The whole movement of the regular form of these notices is towards death.... Their function must be to emphasize a finality about each of these lives, as if to say: through possessed of an excess of vitality by ordinary human standards, these men also die. Thus the thrust of the Genesis 5 genealogy is toward death, even though human life continues.” The Theme of the Pentateuch, 2nd ed., JSOTSup 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 72. Summarizing the primary themes of both the Cain genealogy and the Adam-Seth genealogy, John Walton writes, “We see the blessing in generation after generation as people are fruitful and multiplying. But the countertheme resounds in each generation, ‘and then he died.’ Likewise as people multiply, the sin problem multiplies. The advances in civilization may enhance the ability to procure food, but they do nothing to stem the tide of death and sin. Instead of the blessing resulting in subduing and ruling . . . , it is the curse that is spreading” (284).
59. The last half of the verse might be literally translated, “and non-[earthly]-existence of him [וְאֵינֶנּוּ] because God removed him [כִּי־לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים].” That Moses intended to convey Enoch’s supernatural exemption from death is supported contextually by the absence of the typical phrase, “and he died,” together with the verb לקח, which is elsewhere used of God’s miraculous removal of Elijah from earth into heaven (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 9). As Hebrews unambiguously asserts, “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death [τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον]” (Heb. 11:5a).
60. Kidner notes how Enoch’s translation “conspicuously breaks the rhythm” of the “reign of death” refrain and views it as “the standing pledge of death’s defeat” (80).
61. Genesis 1-15, 146. Wenham is probably alluding to the apostle Peter’s comment, “With the Lord … a thousand years [are] as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8).
62. “Linked to the consequences of Gen. 2-4,” reasons Brueggemann, “it is the task of Noah to end the banishment of the man and woman (3:24) and of Cain (4:16). He is to invert the sorry situation and cause a homecoming…. This anticipation of the work of Noah, placed in the mouth of Lamech, is a gospel announcement.... In a way more intentional than most of these, our verse places Noah at the turn from death to life.... The comfort promised by Noah (v. 29) is to reverse the destiny of living with the consequences of sin” (70). Of course, Noah’s deliverance from the curse is only provisional and functions at a typical level pointing to the Greater Noah, Jesus, who will lead his spiritual family through the deluge of divine judgment unto the ultimate new heavens and new earth (Matt. 24:37-42; Luke 17:26-37; 1 Pet. 3:18-22; 2 Pet. 3:5-13).
63. L. Eslinger has also noted some of these parallels in “A Contextual Identification of the Bene ha´elohim and BenoTh ha´aDam,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (JSOT) 13 (1979): 65-73.
64. For a survey of early interpretations of this passage, see R. C. Newman, “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4,” GTJ 5 (1984): 13-36; P. S. Alexander, “The Targumim and Early Exegesis of the ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6,” JSS 23 (1972): 60-71; L. R. Wickham, “The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Genesis VI 2 in Early Christian Exegesis,” in Language and Meaning, Oudtestamentische Studiën 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 135-47.
65. See 6:1ff. in The Book of Enoch, trans. Robert H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 13-26, and 5:1 in The Book of Jubilees, trans. Robert H. Charles (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), 43. See also Philo ΠΕΡΙ ΓΙΓΑΝΤΩΝ, II-IV, in Philo, trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 2:449-55; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 1.3.1, in The Complete Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1981), 28; Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator, 3.2.14, and Ambrose, On Noah 4.8, in ACCS, 1:124, 126; Brueggemann, 770-73; Cassuto, Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 291-94; Delitzsch, 222-26; Fretheim, Creation, Fall and Flood, 105; Eugene Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 144-45; von Rad, Genesis, 114; Sarna, 45; Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 140-41; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 372. For a thorough defense of this view, see Willem VanGemeren, “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?),” WTJ 43 (1981): 320-48.
66. Fretheim remarks, “The strict separation between God’s world and man’s world had been broken down; the orders of creation had become confused. Evil is not confined to men; it is cosmic in scope.” Creation, Fall and Flood, 105. VanGemeren suggests, “Being under God’s judgment since the Fall, man made an attempt to circumvent God’s plan (Grenzüberschreitung) by being enticed to the Satanic scheme of intermarriage with demonic beings with the hope of ultimate prolongation of life” (347).
67. So Wenham writes, “Here the fault of the daughters of men lies presumably in their consenting to intercourse with ‘the sons of the gods.’ It ought also to be borne in mind that the girls’ fathers would also have been implicated, since, if there was no rape or seduction, their approval to these matches would have been required. The obvious avoidance of any terms suggesting lack of consent makes the girls and their parents culpable, the more so when the previous chapter has demonstrated that mankind was breeding successfully on its own.” Genesis, 1-15, 141.
68. See Delitzsch, 226; VanGemeren, 348; Waltke, Genesis, 117.
69. Ephrem the Syrian, Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1., ACCS, 1:124; Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Random House, 1950), 15.22, 23 (510-14).
70. Luther, 2:7-13. Calvin, 1:237-40.
71. Modern proponents of this view include Bush, 1:116; Currid, 1:173-75; Hamilton, 264-65; Hartley, 95-96; C. F. Keil, 1:127-34; Leupold, 1:249-54; Mathews, 329-32; John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 243-49; J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Covenant (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 205-07; O. Palmer Robertson, The Genesis of Sex: Sexual Relationships in the First Book of the Bible (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002), 35-43; Harold Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 97-98; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1947), 46-49.
72. Targum Onkelos reads, בני רברביא (“the sons of the great ones [i.e., nobles]”), Targum Onkelos to Genesis, 50-51; Targum Neofiti reads, בני דייניא (“the sons of the judges”). Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, trans. Martin McNamara, vol. 1A of The Aramaic Bible, ed. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), 71.
73. Note especially Meredith Kline’s article “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,” WTJ 24 (1965): 187-204. See A. R. Millard, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis Story,’ Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967): 12; David Clines, “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-14) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11)” JSOT 13 (1979), 42; John Walton, “Are the Sons of God in Genesis 6 Angels? No,” in The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986), 184-209; Blocher, 200-03; Ross, Creation & Blessing, 181-83; Waltke, Genesis, 115-17; Rowland S. Ward, Foundations in Genesis: Genesis 1-11 Today (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 1998), 141-45.
74. The linking of the verbs “they saw” (וַיִּרְאוּ) and “they took” (וַיִּקְחוּ) is found elsewhere in contexts of forced or illicit sex (Gen. 34:2; 2 Sam. 11:2-4). But the verb לקח can also refer to taking a bride (Gen. 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2, 3; 25:1; 36:2, 6; Exod. 34:16). Most likely, the reference is to marriage but not to monogamous marriage. The Hebrew reads, וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. This construction may simply mean that they chose any single wife of their liking. In this case the sin, if there is a sin implied, would be indiscriminate marriages based on physical attraction rather than spiritual affinities. On the other hand, the plural נָשִׁיםfollowed by the phrase מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ may suggest that they chose each and every bride they wanted. In favor of the latter, the reader should note the close parallel in Eccl. 6:2, where Qoheleth describes a wealthy man who “lacks nothing of all that he desires” (וְאֵינֶנּוּ חָסֵר לְנַפְשׁוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִתְאַוֶּה). The text in Ecclesiastes employs the verb אוה (“desire”), whereas the text in Gen. 6:2 uses בחר (“choose”). The two verbs, however, appear as synonyms in Ps. 132:13. Moreover, the increase in Lamech-like violence (see Gen. 6:11, 13) leads the reader to expect a concomitant increase in Lamech-like marital practices, i.e., polygamy (see also Gen. 12:10-20; Gen. 20:2-7, 17-18). The grammatical and contextual indications combined have led Joseph Blenkinsopp to conclude that here we have a description of “titan promiscuity.” The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 40. See also Kline, “Divine Kingship,” 195-96; Emil G. Kraeling, “The Significance and Origins of Gen. 6:1-4,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6:4 (1947): 197; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 366-68.
75. It is not clear whether the הַנְּפִלִים identified in 6:4a were merely contemporary with the ַַהגִּבֹּרִים, or whether they were among the offspring of the בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים and therefore numbered with the ַַהגִּבֹּרִים. Elsewhere in the OT, the same expression is used to describe men of gigantic stature (Num. 13:33). It may be that Moses is using the term here to refer to the presence of such “giants” who lived both before and after the flood, and who were also often employed in the service of those military powers that opposed the people of God (Num. 13:33; Deut. 1:28; 2:10; 3:11; 9:2; 1 Sam. 17:4-7, 47; 2 Sam. 21:20-22; 1 Chron. 11:23). In this reading, Moses may be introducing them here not as the offspring but perhaps as the mercenaries of the הַגִּבֹּרִים.
76. Arguments for this position include the following: first, modern archaeological evidence suggests that ancient Near Eastern monarchs were viewed as sons of deities. See especially the works of Ivan Engell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967); Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948); Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967). Second, the primeval account has already depicted humankind as God’s royal vice-regent and son, that is, his image whose kingly commission is to rule over and to subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Ps. 8). This biblical and primeval reality provides the historical root from which later sacral kingship theology developed (of course, in a form corrupted by sinful ideology that tended to deify the human potentate). Third, Scripture elsewhere applies the term אֱלֹהִים to human rulers (Exod. 21:6; 22:8, 9, 27 [Heb. 7, 8, 28]; 2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:7; 82:6; John 10:34-35). Fourth, the preceding and subsequent context lends weight to this view. The earlier reference to Lamech, the bigamist tyrant, provides the prototype of this multiplication of Lamech-like rulers who transgress the bounds of monogamous marriage and promote oppression and violence in the earth. Nimrod’s empire-building and heaven-assaulting Babel enterprises (10:8-12) also echo the despot-like depiction of the בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים and their offspring, הַגִּבֹּרִים. Moreover, the descriptions of the Pharaoh of Genesis 12 and the Abimelechs of Genesis 20 and 26 depict them as human rulers that were known for their attraction to beautiful women and their habit of harem building. Indeed, we find the verbs “to see” (ראה) and “to take” (לקח) in Gen. 12:12, 15. What is more, the concern for an enduring “name” (6:4) is tied to Cain (4:17) and to the Tower builders (11:4) who were empire-builders (compare 10:8-12). Finally, this view is preferred in light of the objections inherent in the other views. Though the phrase “sons of God” could arguably refer to the line of Seth (cf., 5:1ff.), the phrase “daughters of men” does not naturally lend itself to a narrow interpretation of daughters born in the line of Cain. The reference to “mankind” (generic) multiplying in the land and giving birth to “daughters” (6:1) is more naturally interpreted as inclusive of all humanity, not one portion. Furthermore, until now, there has been no clear prohibition against intermarriage among families or clans. Moreover, the clause “they took wives for themselves from any they chose,” as noted above, probably refers to polygamy—a theme already introduced in 4:17—rather than to intermarriage. And the fact that the “serpent’s seed” may be found even among the holy family (Gen. 4:5-8) seems to render an identification of all those in Seth’s line as “godly men” in contrast to the “ungodly men” of Cain’s line questionable. Since the Genesis narrative is primarily focusing on the origin, spread, and consequences of human sin, it seems unlikely that Moses would introduce fallen angels into the picture. In Genesis 3, the Serpent tempts mankind to sin, and Adam and Eve acquiesce. As a result, both the Serpent and the humans are cursed and judged. However, here there is only judgment pronounced on man (6:3) as well as animal life under his dominion (6:7). Finally, it should be noted that Scripture elsewhere implies that angels are not given in marriage, do not procreate (Matt. 22:30; Mk. 12:25; Luke 20:34-36), and therefore are not inclined towards the practice of sexual intercourse (Genesis 19). The boundaries of multiplying according to one’s “kind” established at creation would also seem to discount this view (compare Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 25; 2:19-20). In sum, the evidence seems to lean in favor of viewing these beings as human despots who viewed themselves and who were viewed by others as semi-divine. Perhaps, as some have suggested, fallen angels did play a part in exerting an unseen influence on these rulers (Jude 6 [?]). However, demon possession is too strong a concept, since in that case the demon takes over the human consciousness. Better to see the “principalities and powers in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12) as working “behind the scenes” exerting an influence on human rulers that in no way suspends the rulers’ own consciousness or moral responsibility before God (compare Dan. 10:10-14). See Blocher, 202-03; Ross, Creation & Blessing, 182.
77. Literally, “all the day.” Most translations appropriately interpret this as an adverbial phrase and render it “continually” (KJV, NAS, NKJ, ESV) or “all the time” (NIV, TNK, NET, CSB).
78. The Hebrew noun לֵב or its alternate form לֵבָב occur over 800 times in the OT. In its most basic sense, it refers to the center or core of a person or thing and is sometimes used contiguously with קֶרֶב, “inward part” (Prov. 14:33; Jer. 31:33). Physiologically, it may refer to the physical blood-pumping organ (1 Sam. 25:37; 2 Kings 9:24) or to its proximate location, i.e., breast (Exod. 28:29; Job 41:24; Nah. 2:8). But by far its most frequent use is psychological, in which it denotes the inner or essential nature of God (Ezek. 28:2, 6), man (Dan. 4:16; 7:4), or beast (Dan. 4:16; 5:21). Unlike the English word “heart,” which usually denotes the emotive aspect of man, the Hebrew term can refer to the totality of man’s immaterial nature as distinct from his physical nature (Pss. 73:26; 84:2; Prov. 14:30; 27:19). In some contexts, לֵב is used for one or more constituent parts of a man’s inner nature, standing for the center or seat of the mind (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 29:4; 1 Kings.3:12; Eccl. 2:1, 15; Song 5:2; Isa. 44:19), the emotions (Gen. 42:28; Deut. 28:65; 1 Sam. 2:1; Neh. 2:2; Hos. 11:8), the will (Deut. 2:20; Judg. 9:3; 1 Chron. 22:19; Ps. 37:4; Eccl. 8:11), or the conscience (1 Sam. 24:6; 2 Sam. 24:10; Job 27:6). It may also stand for the center of a man’s ethical-religious identity, being characterized as basically evil (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 15:9; Prov. 10:20), good (1 Sam. 13:14; 2 Kings 20:3; Ps. 32:11), or changed (Deut. 30:6; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:26). The Bible also uses לֵב in reference to the seat of God’s spiritual faculties and moral capacity (Gen. 6:6; 8:21; Hos. 11:8; etc.), reminding us that man was created as God’s visible replica (Gen. 1:26-27). Thus, sin has affected the very core of man’s identity. The Decalogue confirms that the ancient Hebrew conceived of sin as originating within the heart and not merely as an outward action (Exod. 20:17).
79. The Hebrew noun יֵצֶרis related to the verb יצר, meaning “to mold or form.” Used together with מַחְשְׁבֹת (cf., Gen. 50:20) and predicated of man’s heart (לֵב), it refers to “that which is conceived in man’s mind and that to which he inclines in his affections” (see 8:21; Deut. 31:21; 1 Chron. 28:9; 29:18; Prov. 15:26).
80. “Altogether evil” is not a denial of common grace by which unregenerate men may exhibit certain outward virtues and perform deeds that are beneficial to humanity (see Gen. 4:21-22; 20:5; 26:9-11; 45:16; 1 Kings 21:27-29; 2 Kings 10:30-31; Rom. 2:14). Instead, the phrase serves to underline the stark reality that even the “good” deeds of men are tainted by evil motives. To use Paul’s language, the unregenerate man is under sin’s reign (Rom. 6:12-14; 8:7-8).
81. By “total depravity” theologians do not intend to denote that every human being manifests the full potential of evil residing in his heart. The many biblical statements that imply gradations of evil and culpability among human beings discount such a notion (Jer. 7:26; Matt. 11:21-24; 12:45; 26:24; Heb. 10:29; 2 Pet. 2:20). As Anthony Hoekema helpfully clarifies, what is meant is that “(1) the corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature: to one’s reason and will as well as to one’s appetites and impulses; and (2) there is not present in man by nature [he means fallen nature] love to God as the motivating principle of his life.” Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 150. For other OT passages that confirm the depravity of the human heart, see Deut. 31:21; Ps. 14:1-3; 51:3-12 [Heb. 1-10]; Jer. 17:9-10.
82. Vos provides a similar analysis when he writes, “In the strongest terms the extreme wickedness reached at the end of the period is described. The points brought out are firstly: the intensity and extent of evil (‘great in the earth’); secondly: its inwardness (‘every imagination of the thoughts of his heart’); thirdly: the absolute sway of evil excluding everything good (‘only evil’); fourthly: the habitual, continuous working of evil (‘all the day’)” (50-51). Theodorus C. Vriezen says of this text, “A more emphatic statement of the wickedness of the human heart is hardly conceivable.” An Outline of Old Testament Theology, trans. S. Neuijen, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1960), 210.
83. Calvin, for instance, is quick to assert, “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, it is necessary that, for our sake, he should, in a certain sense, transform himself…. Certainly God is not sorrowful or sad; but remains for ever like himself in his celestial and happy repose: yet, because it could not otherwise be known how great is God’s hatred and detestation of sin, therefore the Spirit accommodates himself to our capacity” (1:248-49). Two logical inconsistencies appear in Calvin’s reasoning. First, he seems willing to allow God the emotions of anger and detestation but not the emotions of regret and sorrow. Second, in Calvin’s view God uses descriptive language that, on the one hand, is untrue of God in order to, on the other hand, make known to us what “could not otherwise be known.” Modern scholars have also referred to this language of accommodation as anthropopathism (“human emotions attributed to God which in fact do not have correspondence with human emotions”). Donald Carson offers a fitting rebuttal to this interpretive approach: “It is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life and that insists that all of the biblical evidence to the contrary is nothing more than anthropopathism. The price is too heavy. You may then rest in God’s sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in his love. You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression that is an accommodation of some reality of which we cannot conceive, couched in the anthropopathism of love. Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge (Eph. 3:14-21).” The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000), 58-59.
84. Fretheim observes, “Here, God is revealed as one who, from creation on, is open to and affected by the world. The sinful response of humankind has indeed touched God; God is not apathetic. Even more, it indicates that God’s judgment is not a detached decision. God is shown to be one who does not, indeed cannot, remove self and feelings from such a momentous judgment regarding the future of the creation; such a decision is not like flicking a switch or sending an impersonal command through a subordinate. God is caught up in the matter; and in some respects will never be the same. And so the judgment is a very personal decision, with all the mixed sorrow and anger that go into the making of decisions that affect the people whom one loves.” The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, Overtures to Biblical Theology, ed. Walter Brueggemann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 112. Fretheim’s study provides some helpful insights into an otherwise neglected area of study, namely, the exegetical data concerning divine emotivity, particularly, God’s emotional responses to human sin and misery. The Process Theology and Open Theism framework into which he works many of his exegetical conclusions, however, seriously flaws his study. For a more biblically and theologically balanced view of the divine emotivity, see Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God; Matthew A. Elliott, Faithful Feelings: Rethinking Emotion in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006); John Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2002), 608-16; Gregory G. Nichols, “The Emotivity of God,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1:2 (2004): 95-143.
85. The verb עצב and its cognates often refer to deep emotional pain experienced by humans. It denotes the aroused feelings of brothers whose sister has just been raped (Gen. 34:7), a loyal friend who has just learned of his father’s plans to murder his best friend (1 Sam. 20:34), a father who laments the untimely death of a prodigal son (2 Sam. 19:3 [Heb. 2]), and a wife whose husband has just deserted her (Isa. 54:6). Interestingly, the same terms are used to depict the “pain” that Adam and Eve must suffer as a result of the curse—a pain including both emotional as well as physical dimensions (3:16, 17). Hence, man’s fall into sin brings pain to his Creator’s heart as well as to his own.
86. Von Rad notes, “From the first Fall sin had grown like an avalanche; here at a special climax Moses pauses and interrupts the regular progress of the account. He takes us from the world of complete disorderliness to God and dares to look into God’s grieving heart…. In daring contrast to what is said about the human heart there follows a word about what takes place in God’s heart: grief, affliction, and disappointment in man. Precisely in this way, by reference to the Creator’s bewilderment, he has communicated something of the incomprehensibility of this incursion of sin.” Genesis, 117.
87. Often, the phrase, “and Yahweh saw,” portends divine action whether judgment or mercy (see Gen. 6:12; 29:31; Exod. 2:25; 3:4; 4:31; Deut. 32:19; 2 Kings 14:26; 1 Chron. 21:15; 2 Chron. 12:7; Isa. 59:15-16). As Cassuto notes, “It does not denote sudden perception but the consideration of a state of affairs that had long been in existence, and on account of which a decision has to be taken.” Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 302. God’s emotions also prompt him to take action (Judg. 2:18; Ps. 78:58-62; Hos. 11:8-9; Jn. 3:16).
88. The Hebrew verb מחה (“to blot out”) is repeated three times with reference to the obliterating effects of the flood (see also 7:4, 23). It is used elsewhere of erasing names from community registrars (Exod. 32:32-33), of wiping clean plates (2 Kings 21:13), and even of washing away sin (Ps. 51:1, 9 [Heb. 3, 11]; Prov. 6:33; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer. 18:23). Here God does not erase the sin but the sinners!
89. In 6:3 Yahweh responds to the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men as well as to their resultant offspring by declaring, “My Spirit shall not contend [or ‘abide,’ LXX] with man perpetually, since he is flesh. Therefore, his time shall be 120 years.” The reference to Yahweh’s רוּחַ is likely an allusion to the life-giving Spirit of Elohim earlier introduced in 1:2. But how does one understand the Hebrew verb יָדוֹן? This hapaxlegomena may be related to the verb דִּין, which means “to judge.” However, the LXX translates the verb with καταμείνῃ, which means “to remain” (see also the Vulgate, permanebit). So the verse may refer either to the Spirit’s work of convicting human hearts of sin or to the Spirit’s presence among humanity restraining sin and preventing eschatological judgment. In the end, both interpretations end up at roughly the same place: when the Spirit ceases what he is doing (whether contending or abiding among men), judgment and death will ensue. But to what does the 120-year limit refer? Some argue that God has decided to reduce human lifespans and appeal to the decrease in lifespan after the flood from hundreds of years down to somewhere closer to 120 years towards the end of patriarchal history (e.g., Jacob’s 147 years and Joseph’s 110 years). After Joseph, the lifespans of God’s servants seemed (at least for a time) to remain close to 120 years (Moses’ 120 years, Aaron’s 123 years, and Joshua’s 110 years). Furthermore, this verse is compared to 3:22, where God seeks to prevent man from attaining immortality. See von Rad, Genesis, 114; Wenham, Genesis 1-11, 141-42; Mathews, 334-35. More likely, though, God is portending a timeframe for the coming judgment. Nowhere in Genesis does the lifespan of humanity consistently level out to 120 years (see especially 11:10-26). At the time of Moses’ writing of Genesis, seventy or eighty years was considered the norm (Ps. 90:10). Moreover, it seems preferable to take the time period not as a warning of what will happen after the flood but as a warning of what is about to happen: judgment is coming, and humanity has 120 years to repent! Compare Jonah 3:4 and 1 Pet. 3:20. See also Targum Onkelos to Genesis, trans. Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld (Denver: KTAV Publishing House, 1982), 52-53; Hamilton, 269; Ross, Creation & Blessing, 183; Waltke, Genesis, 117.
90. Throughout Genesis, God refers indiscriminately to man and animals as the recipients of his judgment (6:7; 7:32), with the only exceptions being Noah, his family, and the animals that enter the ark (6:18-21). Moreover, God speaks of making “an end of all flesh” (6:13, emphasis added) and of destroying “all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die” (6:19, emphasis added). Finally, 7: 21-22 summarizes the results of God’s judgment: “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died” (emphasis added). Moses could not find better language to underscore the universality of God’s judgment.
91. Many translations give the כִּי a causal meaning, rendering it “because” or “for” (KJV, DRA, ASV, RSV, NAS, NJB, NRSV). But this does not make sense in the context. Indeed, the previous context indicated that the depraved human heart was the cause for worldwide judgment (6:7, 13). The כִּי may also function to introduce a concessive clause, which makes better sense here (see NKJ, NIV, NLT, NET, CSB). See Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1976), § 448 (73), § 530 (88); Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (GBH), trans. T. Muraoka (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), § 170b (641).
92. For the many verbal and thematic parallels between Adam and Noah, see Gage, 7-12; and A. Tomasino, “History Repeats Itself: the ‘Fall’ and Noah’s Drunkenness,” Vetus Testamentum (VT) 42 (1992): 128-30.
93. So “wine” (יַיִן) is portrayed in Gen. 14:18; 27:25; Judg. 9:13; Deut. 14:26; Ps. 104:15; Eccl. 2:3; 9:7; 10:19; Isa. 25:6; 55:1. Nevertheless, like many of God’s gifts to humanity, wine may be abused. Its misuse is strongly condemned and sometimes even portrayed as a curse in Scripture (Prov. 23:29-35; Isa. 5:11-12; 28:1, 7; 56:12; Jer. 13:13-14; 25:16; Lam. 4:21-22; Ezek. 23:28-33; Nah. 1:9-10; Hab. 2:5, 15-16; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; Gal. 5:19, 21; Eph. 5:18). Not surprisingly, the OT also forbade priests and kings to use wine while acting in the capacity of their office-bearing functions because of its potential to dull the senses and weaken moral judgment (Lev. 10:8-11; Prov. 31:4-5; Isa. 5:22-23). Moreover, the NT also lists intemperance as a disqualifying vice for the pastoral or diaconal office (1 Tim. 3:2-3, 8) and discourages believers from the use of wine in situations that would cause a brother to stumble (Rom. 14:21).
94. Walter Brown attempts to make a case that Noah did not become intoxicated. He suggests “that in Gen 9:21 שָׁכַר should be translated as ‘to be fully content’ or ‘to be satiated to sleep.’” Brown then concludes, “Noah’s action was not negative and despicable; rather, it was positive and commendable.” “Noah: Sot or Saint? Genesis 9:20-27,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 37. Brown’s interpretation, however, is flawed. First, though the verb does not always have negative connotations (Gen. 43:34; Song 5:1; Hag. 1:6), it more often carries a negative connotation when connected with the use of wine (2 Sam. 11:13; Lam. 4:21; Isa. 29:9; 49:26; Jer. 25:27; Nah. 3:11). Second, the exposure of Noah’s “nakedness” after transgressing the limit related to the “fruit of the vine” (9:21) finds a parallel in the exposure of Adam and Eve’s “nakedness” after their transgressing the limit with respect to the “fruit of the Tree” (3:6-7). In both cases “nakedness” functions as an indicator of guilt (see also the connection between a drunkenness that leads to shameful nakedness in Hab. 2:15 and Lam. 4:21). Third, the controlling presupposition that turns the rudder of Brown’s exegesis is the assumption that Moses’ portrait of Noah is that of a “saint” not a “sinner.” Brown avers, “Noah is described positively in the strongest possible fashion…. From the perspective of character analysis, the positive reading of Gen 9:20-27 is expected” (53). But as will become evident in the subsequent analysis of the patriarchal narratives, even saints still sin. Indeed, by recording the “Fall” of Noah, Moses subtly indicates that Noah himself is not the ultimate “Rest-Giver,” that is, “The Seed Par Excellence,” who is yet to come.
95. The LXX renders the Hebrew וַיִּתְגַּל as a passive (ἐγυμνώθη), as do a number of English versions: “and he was naked” (KJV, DRA, ASV, NIV, ESV). But the verb appears in the Hithpael theme, which is normally reflexive, not passive (IBHS § 26.2; GBH § 53i), and the only other place where this verb appears in the Hithpael form is clearly reflexive (Prov. 18:2). The translation “and he uncovered himself” is, therefore, preferable (NAU, NIV, CSB).
96. Hamilton suggests, “Ham was in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Genesis 1-17, 322. But this interpretation lessens the gravity of Ham’s sin by limiting Ham’s crime to his disclosure to his brothers. The antithetical response of Ham’s brothers (9:23) and Noah’s subsequent curse (9:24-25) suggest that both Ham’s looking and telling were intentional acts of contempt and mockery. See Fretheim, “Genesis,” NIB, 404; Luther, 2:167; Mathews, 419-20; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 487-88.
97. Leupold suggests an inordinate voyeurism (1:346).
98. Ham has been accused of either incest (Ham had intercourse with his mother) or homosexuality (Ham committed some sexual act with his father). See F. W. Bassett, “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?” VT 21 (1971): 232-37; Brueggemann, 90; Walton, 346-49. While it is true that the expression “to uncover [another’s] nakedness [לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה]” may refer euphemistically to an act of sexual immorality, the expression is normally accompanied by an explanatory clause indicating its function as such (see Lev. 18:6ff.; 20:11ff.). Moreover, apparently it is Noah, not Ham, who “uncovers” himself (see note 95 above); Ham only looks on his father’s nakedness and informs his brothers. This is further supported by the antithetical parallelism of the action of Ham’s brothers—the text does not say they refrained from uncovering their father’s nakedness but from merely looking on his nakedness. Furthermore, since the subsequent narrative does not shy away from exposing illicit sexual acts (Gen. 19:5, 8-9, 32-36; 34:2; 38:16-18), one would not expect Moses to veil such an immorality here, if indeed it happened. Accordingly, there is no basis in the text for viewing Ham’s sin as a full-blown act of sexual immorality. For a further rebuttal, see G. Rice, “The Curse That Never Was,” Journal of Religious Thought 29 (1972): 11-13.
99. According to Luther, “[Cain’s action] points to a heart that despises not only its parent but also the command of God.” He continues, “Ham’s deed must be traced back, not to some childish playfulness but to the bitter hatred of Satan, who inflames his members against the church, especially against those who are in the ministry, and makes them constantly watchful, so that they may be on the lookout for anything that can be turned into slander” (2:168). Calvin also suggests this reading when he writes, “We see many such at this day, who most studiously pry into the faults of holy and pious men, in order that without shame they may precipitate themselves into all iniquity; they may even make the faults of other men an occasion of hardening themselves into a contempt for God” (1:303). Candlish is most explicit: “Foolish, giddy, willful as he might be, who that had not some more malignant end to serve, could find his father as Noah was found, and make the discovery a matter of jest or exultation? But Ham had another quarrel with his father; he hated his religion. He not merely dishonoured him as a parent—he disliked him as a preacher of righteousness” (158-59).
100. Literally, Noah declares, “Cursed be Canaan” (אָרוּר כְּנָעַן). Moses has already conspicuously referred to Canaan twice as Ham’s son (9:18, 22). This fact suggests that he is providing his Israelite readers the etiological origin of God’s soon-to-be-enacted Holy War on the Canaanites. Hence, the curse had primary reference to Ham’s descendants who would arise through the line of Canaan and not to Canaan in particular. This interpretation relieves the reader of looking to interpretations that attempt to make Canaan an accomplice in Ham’s crime. On the other hand, the primeval narrative has already established the fact that the particular anti-God disposition of a family head (4:4b, 8-9, 13-14) will often be passed on to and through his descendants (4:19, 22-23; 6:1-2, 4-5, 11-13). Perhaps Noah already perceived Ham’s evil ungodly traits being replicated in his son. At the very least, he has, through prophetic insight, anticipated the moral decadence of Canaan’s distant ancestors. See Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 263; and John L. Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 181.
101. Here we have the juxtaposition of two identical nouns, the first a singular and the second a plural—עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים—a superlative genitive (IBHS § 9.5.3j), which may be translated, “The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers” (NIV, NET).
102. For a fuller treatment of the Table of Nations, see Daniel I. Block, “Table of Nations,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988), 4:707-13; Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 430-38; Allen P. Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10—Its Structure,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980): 340-53; idem, “The Table of Nations in Genesis 10—Its Content,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (1981): 22-34; D. J. Wiseman, Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
103. Hamilton, 338; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 222; Sarna, 73. BDB notes that Wilhelm Gesenius in his Thesaurus Linguae Hebracae lists נִמְרֹד as a substantive of מֶָרַד, rebel, but considers this meaning dubious (650). Whatever the ultimate etymological root, the Jews apparently made the connection between the name נִמְרֹד and rebellion. Nimrod is called “a mighty sinner and rebel before the Lord” in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, trans. Michael Maher, vol. 1B of The Aramaic Bible, 47. See also Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, which calls Nimrod “a giant in sin before the Lord” (82). Likewise, note Parashah 37:2-3 of Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis, ed. Jacob Neusner (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 2:38-39.
104. Many scholars have noted the apparent dischronologization of the Table of Nations (10:1-32) and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) narratives. Some, like Clines, propose a thematic purpose behind the order. Themes of the Pentateuch, 74-76; Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 350. Allen Ross, though, is more precise: “The passages are arranged in a manner consistent with Genesis. The broad survey is given first, and then the narrowing and selection or explanation.” Creation & Blessing, 243. One may compare the panoramic view of creation provided in Gen. 1:1-2:3 with the more selective focus on one segment of that creation, namely, mankind and the Garden in Gen. 2:4-25.
105. The Tower of Babel narrative does not identify the Shinar “settlers.” Indefinite terms and expressions are used throughout, such as “they,” “them,” “people.” The most specific reference is found in verse 5: “children of man” בְּנֵי הָאָדָםע]. “Babelites” may represent one rebellious cross-section of postdiluvian humanity, particularly, the descendants of Ham. On the other hand, expressions such as “the whole earth [כָּל־הָאָרֶץ] had one language” (11:1) and “the Lord confused the language of all the earth [כָּל־הָאָרֶץ]” (11:9) seem to carry universal overtones. Even “the children of man” (בְּנֵי הָאָדָם) may not be an indefinite expression but all-inclusive of postdiluvian humanity. The fact that Abram’s family is called out of Ur of the Chaldeans, a city located in Shinar, may indicate that his ancestors were in some way involved in the Babel enterprise. Whether or not every human being alive at the time participated in the event, the Babel-event certainly affected the entire human race.
106. Cain fears the destiny of an “aimless wanderer” (4:14), so he settles and builds a city, naming it after his son (4:17). Likewise, the Babel-builders are motivated to “make a name for [themselves], lest [they] be dispersed over the whole earth” (11:4).
107. The מִגְּדָּל normally refers to a fortified tower or acropolis (Judg. 8:9, 17; 9:46-52; Ps. 48:12 [Heb. 13); 61:3 [Heb. 4]; Ezek. 26:9). In Isaiah the מִגְּדָּל is a symbol of human power and pride (Isa. 2:15; 30:25; 33:18). In a Mesopotamian context, the מִגְּדָּל is the ancient ziggurat (derived from the Akkadian, zaqäru, ‘to build high’). Archaeologists have uncovered the remains of several ziggurats in Mesopotamia and discovered them to consist of several narrowing levels or steps with each successive level accessible by a flight of stairs. At the very top of this “man-made mountain” was a shrine where humans communicated with the deity. See D. J. Wiseman, “Ziggurat,” ZPEB, 5:1059-61. For an aerial view of an ancient ziggurat at the city of Ur, see James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 233, no. 747.
108. In the center of Eden, the reader will recall, was a huge mountain from which emerged a subterranean stream that flowed into the Garden (which was located on the slopes of Eden), where it forked into the four major rivers of the then-known world (Gen. 2:6, 8-9, 10-14; Ezek. 28:14, 16). For the significance of the Holy Mountain motif in biblical theology, see Meredith Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Telos and Cosmos (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006).
109. The Hebrew presumably derives from the Akkadian BäB-ilu or Babylonian BäBiläni, meaning, “gate of god(s).” See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 107-08. Most commentators miss the connection between the man-made mountain-temples of Mesopotamia and the primordial Sacred Mountain of Eden. Meredith Kline, however, sees the link and remarks, “In their proud unbelief [the Babel builders] spurned God’s promised restoration of the true focus and fullness as an act of saving mercy and grace, purposing in an incipient spirit of antichrist to become themselves the creators of a cosmic focus…. So they conspired to erect the mythic sacred mountain of the divine assembly and thus re-create the central axis between earth and heaven.” Kingdom Prologue, 273.
110. Following the lead of Cyrus Gordon, Hamilton interprets the שָׂפָה אֶחָת as referring to a lingua franca, that is, an international language shared by the builders who, in fact, already spoke their own local dialect (לָשׁוֹן, 10:5, 20, 31) (350). In this view, God did not miraculously create new languages, so to speak, but miraculously disrupted the builders’ ability to communicate using the common diplomatic tongue. However, part of the rationale driving this interpretation is the denial by some modern linguists of an Ursprache from which all other languages developed. But if the reader interprets the primeval narrative as an accurate reflection of historical events, then certainly Noah and his family brought with them on the ark a “mother tongue,” and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that it was this preserved antediluvian tongue that was shared among the initial descendants of Noah and confounded at Babel. Whether dialectal variations of this existed prior to Babel or whether the dialectal variations occurred as a result of Babel and later developed into distinct language groups is uncertain. What is certain is that divine intervention supernaturally effected a linguistic fragmentation among the peoples engaged in this enterprise.
111. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, 2nd ed. (1991; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 41.
112. Moses may simply intend בְּנֵי הָאָדָם generically, as a reference to mankind. More likely, he depicts Yahweh’s perception of the folly of this enterprise with a tinge of sarcasm: will mere mortals scale heaven!
113. Nearly every commentator catches the irony: man is building “a tower with its top in the heavens,” yet Yahweh must actually descend (!) in order to see what man is up to. In the words of Mathews, “The necessary descent of God and the humanness of the enterprise, ‘that the men were building,’ shows the escapade for what it was—a tiny tower, conceived by a puny plan and attempted by pint-sized people” (483).
114. Sarna is correct to observe, “This figurative usage [‘come down to see’] implies no limitation on God’s omnipotence, for the divine ‘descent’ presupposes prior knowledge of human affairs from on high, and God’s subsequent counteraction unqualifiedly exhibits His absolute sovereignty” (83).
115. Some interpreters find no hubris at all in the narrative. Robert Laurin, for example, suggests that “the story … is an artful parable about the failure of pagan idolatry to provide the necessary foundation for a continuing culture.” “The Tower of Babel Revisited,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, 143. While this proposal contains an element of truth, Moses has already shown that with the help of common grace ungodly culture is quite capable of making cultural advancements that are beneficial for all humanity (4:21-22). Donald Gowan agrees with most commentators who compare the hubris of Babel with that of the Fall but assesses Babel’s pride as “a subdued form” of hubris. When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publishers, 1975), 29. On the contrary, Babel is “the Fall” writ LARGE! As Blocher notes, “The difference between Eden and Babel is that which distinguishes the individual deed and the collective act.... Having become a collective enterprise, the sinful project [Babel] takes on the face of totalitarianism, with technology and ideology as its means of realization. If Genesis 3 reveals the religious root of human evil, Genesis 11 shows it in its most logical and perhaps most terrible political expression” (204). Fretheim also notes the pride when he observes, “The towers of Babylonia were an attempt not only to facilitate the descent of the gods to men, but also to force the deity’s approach to man into a set mold.” Creation, Fall and Flood, 125.
116. Man’s double cohortative, “Come, let us make bricks …. Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower.’ (11:3-4), is matched by God’s double cohortative, “Come, let us go down and there [let us] confuse their language.” (11:7). For an extensive analysis of both the syntactic and the phonetic symmetry of the narrative, consult Fokkelman’s insightful analysis (11-45).
117. As Ellul observes, “Man certainly did not expect his project to take such a turn. He did not anticipate that the name he wanted to make for himself would refer to a place of noncommunication” (482). Following up on Ellul’s observations, Mathews offers an appropriate modern application: “Babel would also be a fitting name for our ‘postmodern’ world of pluralism, deconstructionism, and therefore ‘noncommunication,’ which declares the autonomy of text and reader and sets meaning afloat in a sea of uncertainty. Revolt against divine and absolute truth has fated lost humanity to wander aimlessly and alone in a silent, chaotic world” (482, n. 189).
118. As noted above, Babel (בָּבֶל) meant “Gate of God” to the builders. However, Moses employs a wordplay, linking the phonetic sounds of “ba-bel” with “ba-lal” the verb translated confused (בָּלַל). Fokkelman notes the stinging irony: “People want a name? Well, they can have it, but how different it will be from the name they had dreamt of. ‘... therefore its name was called Babel, ‘Muddle!’ This unexpected turn is like a judgment, so biting is its sarcasm” (14).
119. The psalmist strengthens the connection by using the same verb from which Peleg’s name derives and which depicts the “division.” Invoking God’s judgment on his enemies, he cries, “Destroy, O Lord, divide [פַּלַּג] their tongues” (Ps. 55:9a).
120. Shinar may refer to the region of Mesopotamia in general (Gen. 14:1, 9; Josh. 7:21) or just to Babylonia (Dan. 1:2). Here, it refers to the southern region of Mesopotamia (10:10), which Moses distinguishes from the northern region of Mesopotamia, later called Assyria (10:11-12; see also Isa. 11:11).
121. Modern archaeological endeavors have unearthed numerous ancient fortified cities and ziggurat towers in Mesopotamia. For a helpful survey of the archaeological evidence, see Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (London: SCM, 1955).
122. As Waltke remarks, “Ancient Near Eastern kings prided themselves on their hunting prowess. They were not shepherd kings.” Genesis, 169. Hence, the expression “mighty hunter [גִבֹּר־צַיִד]” (10:9) should be understood in connection with Moses’s earlier characterization of Nimrod as a “mighty warrior [גִּבֹּר]” (10:8).
123. Von Rad notes the themes of sin, mitigation, and judgment. Genesis, 152f. Westermann highlights the pattern of Vergehen/Schuld (sin/guilt), Strafspuch/Beschluß (judgment-speech/decree), Strafakt/Strafe (act of judgment/ punishment). “Arten der Erzählung,” in Forschung am Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag München, 1964), 47-58. David Clines combines the work of these two scholars and proposes the four categories: sin, speech, mitigation, and punishment. Themes of the Pentateuch, 68. Margaret Dee Bratcher builds on all three and adds the categories of temptation and discovery. “The Pattern of Sin and Judgment in Genesis 1-11” (Ph.D. diss.; Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1984), 225-54. The table above excludes the theme of “temptation,” since it is not obvious in the Flood or Babel narratives.
124. It should not be missed that Shem (שֵׁם) actually means “name.” So it would be to “Name’s” offspring that Yahweh would promise, “And I will make your name great [וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ]” (Gen. 12:2).
125. Unfortunately, the spread of sin theme falls off the radar of most commentators and Bible scholars when the patriarchal narrative is reached. Gerhard von Rad, for example, contrasts “the Jahwist’s great hamartiology in Gen. III-XI” where “sin broke in and spread like an avalanche” with patriarchal or “sacred” history where “the promise of the possession of the land of Canaan, and the promise of an innumerable posterity” become the central motifs. Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2005), 1:154, 168. See also his commentary, 152-54. Following von Rad’s lead, John Gibson sees the “main thrust of the [first] eleven chapters” as “negative” because “they have portrayed sin spreading like a virus and infecting mortally not only humanity but the very physical creation.” In contrast, however, “The call to Abraham which will set the Gospel story in motion is about to be issued.” Gibson refers to God’s activity in the first eleven chapters as “a rearguard action as desperately [God] defends his Kingdom against [sinful man’s] usurping hands.” But beginning in chapter 12, “God launches his counter-offensive.” Genesis, The Daily Study Bible Series (OT), ed. John C. L. Gibson (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1981), 1:212-13. William LaSor, David Hubbard, and Frederic Bush find the themes of the “Problem of Sin” and “God’s Judgment on Human Sin” in the primeval prologue (Gen. 1-11). But these themes disappear in their estimation when the reader transitions to patriarchal history and are replaced by “Election and the Promises of God,” “Faith and Righteousness,” and “Covenant.” Old Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981), 80-85, 111-16. Gordon Wenham argues that chapters 1-11 reveal “the hopeless plight of mankind without the gracious intervention of God.” “But the promises first made to Abraham in 12:1-3,” argues Wenham, “begin to repair that hopeless situation.” Wenham goes on to expand this contrast: “Sin had apparently frustrated God’s purposes for mankind [chs. 1-11]: the promises give hope that they may indeed by realized [chs. 12-50]. The primeval history thus explains the significance of the patriarchal story: though apparently of little consequence in the world of their day, the patriarchs are in fact men through whom the world will be redeemed.” Genesis 1-15, li. Similarly, Victor Hamilton also views the patriarchal history (12-50) as the solution to the sin problem as outlined in the primeval history (1-11) and thus traces the progression of the narrative “from generation (chs. 1-2), to degeneration (chs. 3-11), to regeneration (chs. 12-50). Genesis 1-17, 11. According to Allen Ross, “In Genesis the curse is prominent in the first eleven chapters, for that part of the book traces the spread of sin once humans came to know ‘good and evil.’ The emphasis on the curse is replaced in the patriarchal narratives by the prominence of the blessing, except for the warning of a curse for those who oppose God’s program and God’s people (Gen. 12:1-3).” Creation & Blessing, 67. More recently, T. D. Alexander remarks, “While the early chapters of Genesis concentrate mainly on the terrible consequences of these initial developments [i.e., human disobedience, alienation from God, and divine punishment], the rest of Genesis, from chapter 12 onwards, moves forward with the hope that humanity may yet be reconciled to God.” From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 98. But these analyses of the primeval and patriarchal narratives are simplistic and inaccurate. In fact, both halves of Genesis have something to say about grace and about sin, about blessing and about curse. The gospel does not begin at chapter 12; it begins in chapter 3:15. Likewise, the seeds of human sin planted in Eden’s garden spread their vines beyond the parameters of the primeval narrative and bear much evil fruit in the patriarchal narrative as well. For further discussion of this topic, see the author’s forthcoming, “Where Sin Abounds: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis of the Spread of Sin and the Curse in the Book of Genesis with a Special Emphasis on the Patriarchal Narrative” (Ph.D. Diss.; Bob Jones University, 2008).