Divine Sovereignty Vs. Human Responsibility: Nuancing Kaminski’s Was Noah Good?

By Thomas A. Keiser

[Thomas A. Keiser is a professor and department chair of the Department of Biblical Studies and Christian Ministry at Regent University’s College of Arts and Sciences, Virginia Beach, VA.]

Abstract

In her recent monograph, Was Noah Good? Finding Favor in the Flood Narrative, Carol Kaminski uses a close reading and literary analysis of the biblical text to argue that Noah’s finding favor was not due to his piety, but rather to God’s gracious and unmerited action. The present article seeks to enhance and develop Kaminski’s original study.

Using the same method of close reading and literary analysis, this study discusses additional features of the text. It argues that Kaminski’s thesis is valid, but only presents one side of a two-sided coin. When read structurally, the Gen 6 passage does, in fact, draw a clear separation between Noah finding favor and his righteousness. However, when read narratively, the portrayal is of a close connection between the two issues. Both the structural and narratival reading of the text are justified by numerous literary features. Thus, through literary devices and structure, the author intentionally creates a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. However, the issue is not left there. Additional features of the text present that tension as a mystery, the resolution of which lies hidden in the heart of God.

This literary-theological presentation in the early chapters of Genesis is significant in that, as the first time in Scripture that we are introduced to the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, it is presented as a mystery whose resolution is hidden in the heart of God.

Introduction

In her recent monograph Was Noah Good? Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, Carol Kaminski uses a close reading and literary analysis of the biblical text to argue that Noah’s finding favor with God was not due to his piety, but rather to God’s gracious and unmerited action.[1]

Reviews of Kaminski’s book share similarities in their assessments.[2] Although there is unanimous recognition of her careful literary study of the text, each reviewer expresses concern when she transitions from literary analysis to the more theological discussions regarding the nuances of “finding favor” and “righteousness.” These concerns seem to share the following two commonalities: (1) the methodology moves from a close literary reading of the text to dependence upon theological arguments from outside the immediate context, and (2) these theological arguments are unconvincing.

In appreciation of both her work and the reviewers’ expressed concerns, the present study attempts to enhance Kaminski’s original exploration by further developing the literary analysis. Although, as with Kaminski’s work, a theological conclusion is drawn, it is suggested that the theology is from within the text, as evidenced by the biblical author’s usage of literary devices and structure. The conclusion drawn from this study is that the flood narrative presents a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and does so in a manner that portrays the resolution to that tension as lying hidden in the heart of God.

II. Kaminski’s Argument

As a basis for this present study, it is appropriate to review Kaminski’s analysis. After setting up a “final form” approach to the text, the logical progression of her argument is as follows:

1. The statement that Noah found favor (Gen 6:8) belongs with the preceding narrative (the Adamic genealogy) rather than the flood narrative. Kaminski cites numerous literary features of the text to support this conclusion with the coup d’état being the presence of a strong section indicator (toledot) in v. 9. In short, the point made is that the statement that Noah found favor is the ending of the preceding genealogy and narrative (5:1–6:8) and not the beginning of the flood narrative, which is introduced by “This is the toledot of Noah” in 6:9. The implication of this structure is that the statement that Noah found favor (6:8) and the statement that he was righteous (6:9) should be understood as unrelated since they are separated by the toledot.
2. Noah is not exempt from the depravity of humanity. Having argued that Noah’s finding favor and his being righteous are clearly separated, the next phase of the argument becomes more theological. Although derived from literary analysis, the conclusion reached depends upon the theological interpretation of that analysis. Specifically, Kaminski notes that human depravity is featured in the section preceding the statements that Noah found favor (6:8) and that he was righteous (6:9), as well as in the section following. This feature, along with Noah’s drunkenness, is averred to indicate that he is part of the depravity portrayed in both sections.
3. “Finding favor” is not based on cause and effect. Having argued that Noah’s finding favor and his being righteous are unrelated, and that Noah was part of depraved humanity, Kaminski next addresses what it means that he “found favor.” Following an analysis of the term “favor” (khen) she concludes that the concept of finding favor is not based on loyalty in a relationship but rather upon kindness or generosity. Therefore, there is no cause-effect relationship in finding favor. She then validates this conclusion with other biblical occurrences of the expression.
4. Noah’s righteousness refers to conformity to creational order. The last step in Kaminski’s argument is a discussion of the meaning of the statement that Noah was righteous. Based upon a review of the usages of the term “righteous” (tsedaqah), particularly in Genesis but also in the Pentateuch, her argument is that the phrase is creational rather than covenantal. That is, being righteous means that Noah was living in conformity with the created order rather than that he was morally good.

As do the published reviews, I affirm Kaminski’s strong literary analysis of this section of Genesis. Unlike the reviews, I believe that her theological arguments are valid. Specifically, finding favor in the Hebrew Scriptures is dependent on the grace of the benefactor and is not earned. I also agree that the righteousness of Noah refers to conformity to creational order. That being said, the following study will not address these issues but will provide further literary analysis of the text, revealing an intentional presentation of theological principles closely related to those proposed by Kaminski.

III. Literary Study

1. Material Preceding And Following The Toledot Of Noah

Any literary study of this section of Genesis must consider not only the presence of the statement, “This is the toledot of Noah,” but also the relationship of the material preceding and following this statement. Although Kaminski emphasizes the distinctiveness of these sections, the literary construction reveals a close relationship as well.

In emphasizing the separateness of the material preceding and following the toledot of Noah, Kaminski notes a number of literary features of the text which closely associate 6:1–8 with the preceding passages rather than the following one. Some of the more salient features which she identifies are (1) the term adam is heavily concentrated in Gen 1–5, 6:1–4, and 6:5–8 but occurs only seven more times in Gen 7–50; (2) the temporal clause in 6:1a establishes a connection with the preceding narrative rather than beginning a new section; (3) the use of yalad in 6:1, 4 continues the repetition in 5:1–32; (4) the use of the term “daughters” continues the repetition present in 5:1–32; and (5) the motif of “seeing good” with “taking” alludes to earlier chapters. Based upon these literary features, Kaminski concludes that 6:1–8 is a telescoped narrative that spans the ten generations of Gen 5 and that Yhwh’s description of human wickedness in 6:5 is not strictly a reference to the flood generation, but rather to the entire history of humanity.

There are some additional literary features of the text which Kaminski does not comment upon but which support and strengthen her argument. In an article on the identity of the sons of God,[3] I discuss 6:1–8 in depth and argue that this pericope is an intensely rhetorical allusion to the preceding chapters as evidenced in the following: (1) the continued use of the motifs of multiplication, seeing good and evil, and “taking” women; (2) the implications of the combined usage of the five expressions “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” “nephilim,” “gibborim,” and “men of the name”; and (3) the contrasting perspectives of Yhwh and sinful humanity. Thus, as noted by Kaminski’s observations and my own, there are numerous literary features of the text which support the conclusion that Gen 6:1–8 presents a summary of the utter corruption of humanity which has been introduced and developed in the previous chapters.

Having argued for the close association of 6:1–8 with the preceding storyline, the next issue to be addressed is to what degree this pericope is connected to the flood narrative which follows it, if, in fact, it is connected at all. In spite of her arguments that 6:1–8 does not belong with the flood narrative, Kaminski herself notes some rather strong lexical connections between these verses and the story of the flood: (1) God’s assessment (“seeing”) appears both before and after the toledot, thus arguing that the human wickedness of 6:1–8 is the basis for the flood; (2) the term “blot out” occurs in 6:7 and in 7:4, 23 (before and after the toledot) but nowhere else in Genesis; (3) “face of the ground” occurs in Genesis only before the toledot, and in the flood narrative (2:6; 4:14; 6:1, 7; 7:4, 23; 8:8, 13); and (4) Noah finds favor in 6:7, which favor is described in detail in the flood narrative. These features seem to closely associate 6:1–8 with the flood narrative as well as the preceding material. However, as Kaminski notes, the major problem with this connection is the placement of the toledot of Noah in 6:9. In her view, this interjection of a major structural marker seems to trump the lexical connections noted above. Therefore, since 6:1–8 is strongly connected with the previous narrative as indicated by numerous lexical and thematic ties, and since it is followed by the major pericope marker of a toledot, Kaminski concludes that 6:1–8 is not an introduction to the flood account and therefore Noah finding favor (6:8) must be conceptually separated from his righteousness (6:9).

It is at this point that my own literary analysis begins to deviate somewhat from Kaminski’s. Whereas her focus is concentrated on the toledot and its function of separation, the following discussion, while reaffirming that separation, also recognizes that a close relationship exists between the material before and after the toledot. In fact, it will be argued that the text intentionally presents a tension between separateness and connectedness, thereby serving as the first biblical presentation of a concept which has been the focus of theological debate for centuries: divine sovereignty versus human responsibility.

2. Function Of “This Is The Toledot Of Noah”

The toledot of Noah is strikingly unique among the toledots of Genesis. Every other toledot marks a change in genre, usually from story to genealogy or from genealogy to story.[4] However, in the case of Noah, the toledot occurs in the middle of a narrative section and thus does not mark any such change. This alteration of an established pattern serves as a literary device which focuses attention.[5] But, for what purpose?

Before assessing the function of this anomaly, something else must be noted. There is another unique and strange feature with this toledot. In addition to not introducing a genre shift, it does not even appear to interrupt the storyline. Below I have provided a translation of Gen 6:5–13, but have omitted the phrase “This is the toledot of Noah.” Note the lack of interruption in the storyline.

And the Lord saw that the evil of mankind was great on the earth and all the formation of the thoughts of his heart was evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart. And the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from upon the face of the ground—from mankind to animals, to creeping things, and to birds of the heavens—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was a righteous man. He was blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And the earth was corrupt before the face of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth and, behold, it was corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth. So God said to Noah, …

Unless one is very familiar with the biblical text, it is difficult to determine an appropriate location for the omitted toledot statement. Thus, not only does the toledot of Noah not signal a change in genre, as is the usual pattern, it also seems to be awkwardly inserted into the middle of a story. Once again, one is led to ask, “Why?” What is the function of this unusual placement of a toledot?

I suggest that there are several functions of this apparently awkward insertion. First, as with all toledots, it signals a major division in the text. In this case, one of the effects of the insertion is, as Kaminski argues, to separate the concepts of Noah’s finding favor and his being righteous. But the separation function serves other purposes as well, as will be discussed below. On the other hand, the continuous storyline before and after the toledot serves a strong rhetorical function by closely connecting the material preceding and following its insertion. It will be proposed that the combination of these features of continuity and discontinuity serves to communicate its profound theological message.

Function as a Division Marker. The material preceding the toledot of Noah (Gen 5:1–6:8) presents the spread of Adam’s sin and its consequences, resulting in God’s judgment. Prior to the flood account, any concept of deliverance is only “hinted at.” It is foreshadowed by Enoch escaping death (5:24), by Lamech longing for deliverance from the curse of the ground (5:29), and by the statement that Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord (6:8).[6]

In contrast to simply being foreshadowed, the idea of deliverance becomes explicit following “this is the toledot of Noah.” The verses leading up to the toledot state that “Yahweh saw” followed by a speech of intended destruction. The verses immediately following the toledot state that “God saw” followed once again by a speech of intended destruction, but now adding a promise of deliverance. In fact, this added concept of deliverance becomes the focus of the subsequent narrative. Thus, the toledot does, in fact, function as do other toledots in that it introduces a new section. Whereas previously God responded to sin with judgment, this new section explicitly introduces God’s provision of salvation in addition to simply judgment. In other words, the toledot of Noah introduces the concept of salvation into the Genesis narrative.

Rhetorical Function. Even though the toledot of Noah functions in the normal manner of a strong division marker, it is unique. While fully introducing the idea of salvation through judgment, it does not include the usual change in genre. As discussed above, the absence of a switch between narrative and genealogy is a break from the established pattern, and this particular toledot appears to be awkwardly placed in the middle of a continuous storyline. These features serve a rhetorical function which directly relates to Kaminski’s discussion.

As Kaminski argues, the insertion of the toledot of Noah separates the concepts of Noah’s finding favor and his righteousness. However, that is only one side of a two-sided coin. When focusing on the structure of the text (insertion of a toledot) one rightly understands a separation between the ideas of righteousness and finding favor. On the other hand, however, when focusing on the conceptual flow of the narrative, it appears that there is an intended connection between the two ideas. Given that the continuous narrative format is a deviation from the norm, and that deviations from established patterns focus attention, the text seems to be carefully constructed in a manner which, conceptually, associates righteousness with deliverance on the one hand, but, structurally, dissociates those ideas on the other hand (the toledot marker). This construction has the effect of creating a tension with how one reads the text, and therefore with how one relates divine deliverance to human righteousness. Read narratively, the story presents a connection. Read structurally, there is a clear separation between the concepts. This interweaving of literary devices is, I suggest, a deliberate creation for the purpose of creating a tension. In fact, that same tension appears again, and with further development.

The text’s two presentations of God’s observation of the intractable wickedness of humanity (Gen 6:1–8; 8:21) present another and related tension to that created by the toledot. The same basic observation by God generates opposite responses in each respective case. In the first case, human depravity is his reason for applying judgment, whereas, in the latter, that same depravity is his basis for deferring judgment. What is the basis for such a profound change in response on the part of God to the same situation? The narrator gives the alert reader a clue by his usage of the word “heart.”

The word “heart” (leb) appears only four times in the first sixteen chapters of Genesis. It appears twice in 6:5–6 and twice in 8:21. Of further interest is that, in each text, one of the two usages refers to God’s heart and the other refers to the human heart. In the passage which provides the background and basis for God’s destruction, the narrator states that the Lord was grieved in his “heart” when he observed that the thoughts of man’s “heart” were only evil continually. Following the flood, the Lord says in his “heart” that the thoughts of man’s “heart” are evil from his youth. In view of the facts that (1) these are the only references to “heart” in the entire story, (2) both reference the hearts of God and humanity, (3) both refer to humanity’s intractable wickedness, and (4) both texts relate to cause for judgment, this construction seems to be another intentional literary device. In this case it signals the reader to focus attention on the matter of the “heart” when considering why God so drastically changes his response to human depravity.

As one studies this issue, it is apparent that the basis of any change must lie in God’s heart since the human heart remains the same. That being the case, the first passage is straightforward, with God’s motivation being clearly stated: “his heart was grieved.” However, the second passage is vague. The narrator simply says, “God said in his heart,” with no statement revealing the content of God’s musings.[7] No literary or even logical clues are given for this second and opposite response on the part of God to human wickedness. At this point one might ask if the omission of any explanation for God’s change in stance toward human evil represents some inadequacy in the narrative presentation. However, the literary creativity which the author has repeatedly demonstrated throughout this section argues for this confusing feature being intentional. I suggest that this literary structure is designed to portray the change in God’s response to sin as a divine mystery. That is, it is simply a decision which God makes, in his heart, apart from any overt explanation.

Not only is this conclusion derived from the connection of Gen 6:1–8 with 8:21, it seems to be validated by the structure of the larger literary context. As is often noted, the entire flood narrative is structured with the focal point being the statement that “God remembered Noah.”[8] This statement is a curious one in that it does not seem to be necessary. God has already stated that Noah and all who were with him in the ark would be preserved through the flood. Further, the extensive description of the preparation of and entrance into the ark makes it evident that this promised deliverance is occurring. What then is the purpose of the statement “God remembered Noah”? The context would indicate that God certainly had not forgotten Noah. Additionally, “remembering” in the OT tends to carry the connotation of consciously calling to mind for the purpose of taking some form of action, rather than recovery from forgetfulness. Therefore, this statement appears to be designed to direct the reader’s attention to God taking specific thought of Noah and then initiating the reversal of the catastrophic events of the flood.[9] But, once again, as in Gen 8:21, the specific content of God’s thoughts is not given. This statement is presented as an independent, subjective activity of God, portrayed apart from any precipitating basis.[10] Further, as with the insertion of “this is the toledot of Noah,” the narrative would flow quite smoothly without that statement. Its inclusion seems to indicate that the narrator is intentionally drawing attention to this specific divine act of remembrance while not explaining it. With this being the case, in two separate instances (6:5–6 with 8:21, and 8:1) the narrator directs the reader’s attention to the same issue. Both the reason for God’s promise never again to destroy the world by flood and his act of remembering Noah are left in the obscurity of the divine heart.

IV. Conclusion

As Kaminski has effectively argued, the toledot of Noah separates the concepts of Noah’s finding favor from his righteousness. In this study it has been argued that this toledot, along with various literary features of the flood narrative, actually presents a tension between those ideas. When read narratively, the two concepts seem to be directly related. When read structurally (as Kaminski) they are separated. From one perspective, Noah’s finding favor is related to his righteousness. From another, the two are separate and unrelated.

This tension is further developed in the reasons given for the flood and for the assurance of no repeat event. The reasons for both are essentially the same, namely human depravity, with both descriptions being presented with comparisons between God’s heart and humankind’s heart. In the case of the reason for the flood, God’s heart is grieved. However, in the reason for the promise of no future destruction by flood, God simply speaks in his heart, with no explanation regarding the content of that “speech” being given. As suggested above, this presentation features God’s change in response to human depravity as hidden in his heart. As we saw above, a similar effect is produced with the pivot statement of the flood narrative, “God remembered Noah.”

Thus, combining the features of the toledot of Noah, and the reasons given for the flood and the promise of no future flood, it is suggested that the flood narrative intentionally presents a tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and does so in a manner that portrays the resolution to that tension as lying hidden in the heart of God.

Notes

1. Carol M. Kaminski, Was Noah Good? Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative (London: T&T Clark, 2014).
2. Kathrin Gies, review of Was Noah Good? Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, by Carol M. Kaminski, Review of Biblical Literature, http://www.bookreviews.org (February 8, 2016); Peter J. Leithart, review of Was Noah Good? Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, by Carol M. Kaminski, https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2014/08/wasnoahgood (2014); Gordon Wenham, review of Was Noah Good? Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, by Carol M. Kaminski, JTS 67 (2016): 172–73.
3. Thomas A. Keiser, “The Sons of God in Gen 6:1–4: A Rhetorical Characterization,” WTJ 80 (2018): 103–20.
4. See Table 1 below.
5. It is commonly recognized that in Hebrew rhetoric an alteration of an established pattern serves as a literary device to focus attention.
6. It is commonly noted that the judgments of the man and woman in the garden as well as that of Cain include some degree of mitigation, which can also be understood as foreshadowing deliverance. See, e.g., David J. A. Clines, “Theme in Genesis 1–11, ” CBQ 38 (1976): 483–507.
7. One could argue from the series of wayyiqtols that there is some relation between God smelling Noah’s sacrifice and the content of what he said. However, there is no explicit connection in the text. Even if one assumes a direct connection, there is still no overt explanation as to why God smelling the sacrifice would logically motivate a decision not to destroy in the future. Although suggestions might be offered, they would, of necessity, be speculative.
8. This same focus of the presentation of the flood itself is noted by a number of scholars who argue for a chiastic structure which centers on 8:1, e.g., Bernhard W. Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11, ” in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 433; Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, Old Testament Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 72; David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 52; Robert E. Longacre, “The Discourse of the Flood Narrative,” JAAR 47 (1979): 89–133; John Maier, “The Flood Story: Four Literary Approaches,” in Approaches to Teaching the Hebrew Bible as Literature in Translation, ed. Barry N. Olshen and Yael S. Feldman (New York: The Modern Language Association, 1989), 107; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 191; Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 125; Gordon J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 (1978): 337–42.
9. A parallel is often noted between the wording and content of this statement and that of Gen 1:2 (“the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters”) with both situations initiating the creative/saving activity of God.
10. One might suggest that there is an implied rationale in the covenant established in 6:18. However, it must be observed that even that covenant is presented in terms of God’s will and apart from any explanation of motivation (Noah’s finding favor being separated from the statement of his righteousness by the toledot). Therefore, the remembrance of the inhabitants of the ark is portrayed as an unexplained action on the part of God.

Table 1: Table of toledots with changes in genre

Gen 2:4	earth and heavens	Transitions from the unique genre of Gen 1 (poetic narrative) to a typical story type presentation
5:1	Adam	Transitions from story to genealogy
6:9	Noah	No change in genre
10:1	sons of Noah	Transitions from story to genealogy
11:1	Shem	Transitions from story to genealogy
11:27	Terah	Transitions from genealogy to story (Although the section begins with a genealogical entry, it is mixed with narrative, the combination of which serves as the background to the story of Abraham.)
25:12	Ishmael	Transitions from story to genealogy
25:19	Isaac	Transitions from story to genealogy
36:1	Esau	Transitions from story to genealogy (Although the prior narrative contains a listing of Jacob’s sons, that list is embedded into the story and serves to explain the statement “and the sons of Jacob were twelve,” 25:22. The toledot of Esau in 36:9 is a subset of 36:1 and gives the genealogy which developed after he moved to the land of Seir.)
37:2	Jacob	Transitions from genealogy to story