And it came to pass when mankind began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them,
The chapter that ends in a flood begins quietly: the human family grows, and daughters are born. Yet this one line opens one of the darkest episodes in Scripture, and commentators do not agree on what happened next.
One writer places this verse late in the world before the flood, and takes the "sons of God" of the next verse to be angelic beings:
As we open Genesis 6 we come to the later centuries of the age before the flood. The population had grown greatly, and human wickedness began to rise to a climax. Many have understood the term "sons of God" to mean men of Seth's line — the line of faith — who fell away and married daughters of Cain's line. But we agree with those who take the term to mean beings of an angelic order. That is plainly its sense in Scriptures such as Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7.
Commentators differ. Others read the phrase as the godly family line traced in the chapter before:
It was not long before mankind multiplied greatly on earth. The dreadful effects of sin multiplied with them. The corrupt mixture of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" shows this. We have seen in chapter 5 that the line of Seth kept "the likeness of God" in some measure at least. That is why they are called "the sons of God": they were separate from the evils of the line of Cain.
A third writer tests both views against how the Old Testament uses these two phrases:
There is no proof in the text that the daughters of men were only descendants of the Cainites. The text supports the view that "daughters of men" means the natural increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. The theory that "sons of God" must mean godly people also cannot stand. The Old Testament never calls believers "sons of God"… The believer is a son of God, predestined to the son-place, with the spirit of sonship in him, crying "Abba, Father." That truth is revealed only in the New Testament.
Scripture tells us very little about what happened. One writer sees that silence as deliberate:
The Holy Spirit has veiled such a fact in the only manner that suited God and was proper for man. Here the principle of reserve does apply. It does not withhold from a person's soul the deepest blessing of grace for his deepest needs. It simply gives no more than what was fitting for man to learn about the matter. He has said enough… In my judgment "the sons of God" in Genesis mean the same beings as in Job. That shows their chief guilt: they crossed the boundaries God had appointed for His creatures. No wonder that total ruin quickly follows. It is really the basis of fact for more than a few tales of mythology which men have made up.
One writer reads verse 1 in the light of the chapter before, which ends with Enoch taken to heaven:
Enoch has passed off the scene. His walk as a stranger on earth ended when he was taken to heaven without dying… How little influence his life and his departure had upon the world is clear from the first two verses of chapter 6… The mingling of what is of God with what is of man is a special form of evil. It is a very effective tool in Satan's hand for spoiling the testimony of Christ on the earth. This mingling may often look like something very desirable… something to be glad about rather than to grieve over. But our judgement about it depends on the point of view we look at it from… Separation from all evil is God's principle. No one can break it without doing serious damage to the truth.
One writer sets Noah's moment beside our own:
Notice next the moment in which Noah gave his testimony. There is some likeness between that moment and the present. The Lord Himself pointed this out in Luke 17:26-27… So Noah lived at the close of an age. The storm clouds of divine judgment were gathering on every side. We too live at the close of an age, and once more the judgment of God is preparing for an evil world. Men are as careless and indifferent now as they were long ago.
- Multiply. Numbers grew, and evil grew with them. This verse opens the last centuries before the flood.
- Mystery. Commentators differ on the "sons of God": some read angelic beings (from Job), others the line of Seth.
- Measure. God said enough and no more, and human myth-making rushed to fill the gap.
- Mixing. Ruin starts when people erase the line between what is God's and what is man's. At the time it looks attractive.
- Mirror. The same carelessness marks the present, which is why the Lord pointed back to Noah's days.
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and took themselves wives of all that they chose.
This verse opens one of the hardest passages in Genesis. Who are the "sons of God"? And why does their marriage to "the daughters of man" ruin the world? Commentators differ on who these sons are. They agree on what the union did.
One reading looks at how the Old Testament uses the phrase elsewhere, and at what Peter and Jude say.
There is no denying that the early books of the Bible use "sons of God" of angels (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7)... Old Testament usage gives no ground to question this. The phrase applies to angels, not to men — even faithful and righteous men. And the apostolic reference is indisputable. Peter and Jude view the awful crisis at the end of this age in the light of this scripture. They do so from quite different angles. Yet together they bear the testimony of the Holy Spirit that angels were meant here by "sons of God."
Another writer takes up the other half of the verse, and then the children this union produced.
The text supports the view that "daughters of men" means the natural increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. The theory that "sons of God" must mean godly people also fails. The Old Testament never applies the term "sons of God" to believers... The result of the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men was children who were heroes, men of the Name. Suppose the sons of God were only the godly descendants of Seth, who mixed with the descendants of Cain. Then it is hard to see why the offspring should be a special race, heroes, men of the Name. The giants were Nephilim, which means "the fallen ones."
Others read the sons as Seth's family marrying into the line of Cain. Their strongest support is the next verse.
But God's word in verse 3 settles this matter: "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh." So "the sons of God" were the responsible parties here. They took wives; the wives did not take them. So God calls the sons of God "men," insisting also that they are "flesh," not spirit, as angels are. So early in history, this event stands as a solemn warning. Believers must not yoke themselves with unbelievers.
One writer sets the looking and the taking in this verse beside the first temptation in Eden.
If the cleverest of enemies seduced Adam, and he followed the sight of his eye and the desire of his heart, then an enemy just as successful now seduces the sons of God... They take wives from all "whom they choose." They listen to other lords, for God is not in all their thoughts. Then it does not matter whether it is the promise of the serpent or the beauty of the daughters of men.
Whatever the sons were, the sin blends two things God kept apart. One writer sees here a change of tactics by the enemy.
The union of the sons of God with the daughters of men led to the most disastrous consequences. True, the fruit of that union seemed extremely fair in man's judgement... yet God's judgement was quite different... If the holy seed will not keep its purity, everything must be forfeited as far as testimony on the earth goes. Satan's first effort was to put the holy seed to death and so frustrate God's purpose. When that failed, he tried to gain his end by corrupting it.
The result of such blending runs only one way.
The effort of Satan has always been to wipe out the distinction between good and evil. The alliance of good with evil never purifies the evil, but always defiles the good. Absolute separation of the one from the other is always God's way.
One writer sets the identity question aside and points to what is not in doubt.
We need not stop to ask the exact meaning of the phrase "sons of God"... It is enough to note what Scripture shows. A wall of separation stood between those who were OF GOD and those who were of MEN. Breaking it down was the immediate cause of the terrible evils which brought down God's displeasure.
- Disputed — Commentators differ on the "sons of God." Some say angels, from Job's usage and from Peter and Jude. Others say Seth's line, since verse 3 calls them men and flesh.
- Undisputed — Both readings agree on the sin. A wall God had set between two orders came down, and that caused the terrible evils that followed.
- Seen — The sin starts at the eye. They looked, found the women fair, and followed the desire of the heart, as Adam did.
- Chosen — Then the will acts. They took wives of all whom they chose, and God had no place in the choice.
- Mixed — Mixture is Satan's second move, after putting the holy seed to death failed. The union looked fair to men and produced heroes. But mixing good with evil never lifts the evil; it only defiles the good. God's way is always complete separation.
And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always plead with Man; for he indeed is flesh; but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
This is God's own comment on a world sliding into corruption. He gives a reason ("he is flesh") and a number (120 years) — and commentators ask what that number limits: man's lifespan, or God's pleading with him.
A note on wording. The ESV reads, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever." The writers quoted here use an older translation: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." Their comments turn on that word "strive."
One writer sets this sentence against the violence and corruption filling the earth:
That was the condition of the whole scene, from one end to the other. Against all this corruption and violence now spreading over the earth, God marks out His judgment: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." There may be, and there will be, a period of patience — as it says, "his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" — but the judgment still stands, and the day when God comes to deal with men will come. The Spirit will not always strive.
The reason God gives is not that man is weak in body. It is what man has shown himself to be. One commentary ties the phrase to Isaiah's words about flesh and spirit, and notes that translators have long disagreed here:
Translators and commentators differ a good deal over how to translate this verse and how far it reaches... But the sense is moral rather than physical existence, and the older English version gives it well enough. Some prefer "in his wandering" instead of "for that," and that may well be right. So Isaiah 31:3 says that Egypt is man and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit. Man had now proved himself no better. But when the LORD warns that His Spirit will not always plead, He is setting a limit to His patience. The hundred and twenty years refer, not to the length of man's life, but to the space given for repentance.
Another writer prefers the same alternative reading, and sets out the verse as he would render it:
He is flesh — mortal man — and not God... But De Wette, in his translation, takes the 120 years as the length of life. I believe that is a complete mistake. It is the time allowed for preaching repentance, and for building the ark. "In their wanderings" would be just as good as "because of," or better. The verse would then read: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man (or among men) in their wanderings — he is flesh — but his days shall be 120 years."
Another writer points out that people went on living far longer than 120 years:
It is strange that anyone should think this sets a limit to human life, which was then, and for generations afterwards, far longer. It is the limit of the Spirit's striving with that generation, and at the end of it the flood came. For them the end of the Spirit's striving and the end of their life came together.
God did not strive in silence. He used a preacher, and the long years while the ark was built:
So He was present by His Spirit in the days of Noah... His Spirit was then on the earth. In His patience God waited one hundred and twenty years while the ark was being built. His Spirit preached then. But He needed an instrument. The instrument was Noah. In him was the Spirit of Christ, and as the preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5) he brought the warning of coming judgment to the people around him. They did not listen. They went on in disobedience, were swept away by the flood, and are now the spirits in prison.
The set term also answers a question about those same souls. Once the term ran out, the striving stopped:
That is to say, His Spirit would strive through the testimony of Noah for a hundred and twenty years, and no longer. It would be a very strange thing if the Lord kept on striving by testimony with these people only (for he speaks only of them) after they had died.
One writer turns the verse into a guard against treating God's patience as permission:
Sinners, the time is soon coming when the drawbridge of mercy will be pulled right up... God holds back punishment, so men hold back repentance... But though men will not set limits to their sin, God does set limits to His patience.
- Cause — The verdict is moral, not physical. Man had proved himself to be nothing better than flesh, so God's Spirit will not plead with him forever.
- Gift — The 120 years are the space given for repentance, not a shortened lifespan. People went on living far longer for generations afterwards.
- Voice — The striving had a preacher. The Spirit of Christ was in Noah, who warned the people around him while the ark was built.
- Result — For that generation, the Spirit's striving and their lives ended together. Those who disobeyed are the spirits now in prison.
- Warning — Men will not set limits to their sin, but God sets limits to His patience. So His patience is never a reason to delay.
In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown.
This verse sits in the darkest part of the story before the flood. It names giants on the earth, a strange union, and heroes whose fame outlived them. Two questions follow. Who were the Nephilim, and who were the sons of God?
Many Bibles leave the Hebrew word "Nephilim" untranslated. One reference work weighs its meaning and separates these beings from the children born of the union:
Nephilim. The meaning of this word is uncertain: some trace it to a root meaning 'to fall,' but it is not clear whether it means 'fallen ones' or 'those who fall upon.' They were men of great stature, which made the Israelites think of themselves as grasshoppers by comparison. Some have supposed they were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but Scripture does not say so. It describes those born of that union as "mighty men (gibborim) which were of old, men of renown." Scripture says only that the Nephilim were "in the earth in those days," and they were also seen by the spies about a thousand years later: this is all that is revealed about them.
The verse names two groups: the giants already there, and the heroes born of the union. One writer sets out that reading and what made the second group famous:
The wording of verse 4 is not easy. It appears to distinguish between the Nephilim or giants in those days, as afterwards also, and the Gibborim, mighty ones or heroes, who were the fruit of the union of the sons of God with men's daughters... These, being of quite a different source and character, had a fame all their own for might. The reputation they gained of old was not founded on mere stature, like that of the Nephilim.
Commentators differ here, and have long done so:
There were 'sons of God' who took wives of 'the daughters of men.' Genesis 6:4. Some believe these were angels, permitted to take human form: compare Jude 6, 7. Others judge that the descendants of Seth are meant.
One writer argues for angels from the way Job uses the phrase, and answers the usual objection from the Lord's words about angels:
Who are the sons of God referred to here? Believing men are undoubtedly called "sons of God" in Romans 8, but it would be beside the point to bring that thought into Genesis 6. The expression is best explained by its use in the book of Job, written about the same time, and there it is beyond all doubt used of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38). Genesis 6 therefore tells us of the spirit world breaking its bounds and entering into unholy connection with the human family... It is beside the mark to quote Luke 20:34-36 as an objection to this. The Lord is there describing the proper state of angels, the state from which the offenders of Genesis 6 departed.
"Men of renown" is man's verdict. God's verdict was the opposite:
True, the fruit of that union seemed exceedingly fair in man's judgement, as we read, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown;" yet God's judgement was quite different. He does not see as man sees... So much for mixing the holy with the unholy. It will always be so. If the holy seed will not keep its purity, all must be forfeited as far as testimony on the earth is concerned. Satan's first effort was to frustrate God's purpose by putting the holy seed to death, and when that failed he sought to gain his end by corrupting it.
The fame of these men outlived them and turned into story:
The monstrous men produced were monsters of iniquity, filling the earth with violence and corruption. Yet man in his fallen condition is such that these monsters, instead of being counted men of infamy, were treated as men of renown. They were doubtless the originals from whom sprang those tales of "gods" and "goddesses" and "Titans," and so on, which have come down to us in the writings of antiquity.
The verse also answers a common argument: that mixing with what is corrupt will lift it.
The most common excuse for a Christian mixing with the world is this: by doing so he will help to raise and purify the people he joins himself to. We need go no further into the Bible than Genesis 6 to see how false that argument is... The sons of God did not elevate the daughters of men, and their offspring took after the baser strain.
- Boundary. Something crossed a line: on one reading, the spirit world broke its bounds and entered into connection with the human family.
- Two classes. The Nephilim were already "in the earth"; the Gibborim, the mighty men, were the fruit of the union. The text keeps them apart, and only the second group carries renown. The giants show up again a thousand years later, when the spies see them.
- Disputed identity. Commentators differ on the sons of God — angels allowed to take human form, or the descendants of Seth.
- Reversed verdict. Men crowned these heroes as great; God judged the union and its fruit quite differently.
- Result. The mixture filled the earth with violence and corruption, and left behind the old tales of gods and Titans. Mixing never lifts the lower; it drags down the higher.
And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of Man was great on the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually.
Before the flood, God reads the human race — not its behaviour alone, but the hidden springs behind it. Does that verdict cover one wicked generation, or every one of us? (Where the writers quote the older wording "imagination," the ESV reads "intention.")
The verse works in layers. Each one goes deeper than the last:
How piercing verse 5 is! Man's wickedness became great, or abundant, for he was wholly evil in the deepest springs of his being. His heart was evil; the thoughts of his heart were evil, and the imagination, which lay behind and prompted his thoughts, was evil. And all this was only evil — not one trace of good — and that continually. So before the flood we have the very same verdict about man that Romans 3:10-18 gives us. That passage quotes Scriptures which describe the condition of men after the flood.
God's judgment did not rest on one ground alone:
The Spirit of God has been pleased to state two grounds on which God brought the judgment of the flood on man. First, because of what he had done: "The wickedness of man was great in the earth." Further on we read that this took two forms, corruption and violence. They are the parent sins of Genesis 3 and 4... Second, because of what he was: "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Or, as the margin reads, "The purposes and desires of his heart" were such.
One writer weighs each word of the verdict in turn:
"Every imagination" — without exception. "Only evil" — without any mixture of good. "Continually" — without a pause. What a picture!
The verdict weighs more because of who reached it:
It would be hard to find a more solemn verdict. "Every imagination" of them was before Him. He loves to credit the least thought or feeling that is good, yet He saw nothing but evil all the day. He is surely the God of judgment, and after due testimony He will not be slow to carry it out.
If the evil lies in the nature itself, effort cannot reach it. One writer answers the obvious objection:
There is nothing good at all in our sinful nature. Even the most advanced believer said, "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). But can it not be improved by diligence in prayer and watchfulness? No, never: it is wholly incurable... We may not be able to bend a bar of iron, yet it may be beaten out until it becomes quite flexible, but it is the same iron still. Its appearance has changed, but its nature is the same.
Does this describe only the people of Noah's day?
Was it true then? Is it true today? What does God see in the men of this day? What is the difference between the men of that day and this day? There is none. Man is man. You cannot change him. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" (Jeremiah 13:23). No, and you cannot change man either. Take a drunkard, an unsaved man. Reform him and polish him up. He is still an unsaved man... There must be a work of God in his soul. Note the force of Scripture. Man is wrong at heart. "Out of the heart come evil thoughts" (Matthew 15:19). Men can read what is outside, but God reads the heart.
Sin ran its course, yet one man stood in a different relation to God. Where this writer says Noah "found grace," the ESV reads that he "found favor in the eyes of the LORD":
But "Noah found grace in the eyes of Jehovah." That is, God's favour rested on him. He was righteous himself, no doubt, but it all came through grace... But the earth was completely filled with violence. Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually; if sin comes in, it is sure to ripen up.
- Sight — God's verdict starts with what He sees. He sees the wickedness on the earth, and behind it every intention of the heart. He would credit any good He found there, and He found none.
- Source — The verdict moves inward through three layers: heart, thoughts, and the imagination behind them. The problem is what man is, not only what he does.
- Sweep — "Every," "only," and "continually" leave no exception, no mixture of good, and no interval of relief.
- Stubbornness — Polish cannot change a nature like this. Iron beaten flexible is iron still. Only a work of God in the soul changes a man.
- Salvation — In the same dark chapter, Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD. That favour rested on him as a gift, not as a reward.
And Jehovah repented that he had made Man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.
Genesis 6 turns from man's spreading wickedness to how that wickedness struck God Himself. Can the God who knows everything regret what He made, and can a creature's sin really grieve his Creator?
God brought the flood for two reasons, not one. One writer sorts them into what man did and what man was:
The Spirit of God has chosen to tell us two grounds on which God brought the judgment of the flood on man. First, because of what he had done: "the wickedness of man was great in the earth." Further on we read that this took two forms, corruption and violence. Second, because of what he was: "every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"; or, as the margin reads, "the purposes and desires of his heart" were such.
The verse names the LORD, not God considered in the abstract. He watches His creatures, and here He finds nothing to credit them with:
This is not God simply in His nature, but the God who concerns Himself with the ways of His creatures... He who loves to credit the least good thought or feeling saw nothing but evil all the day.
Older translations say God "repented." The ESV reads that He "regretted." Either way, the word does not mean what it usually means for us:
Much depends on grasping the meaning of the word "repent." In Scripture it does not usually mean remorse or sorrow, as so many think. It means a change or turnaround in the attitude of the mind... In any sense of regret or remorse about His personal actions, we are assured that God "is not a man that He should repent."
So God speaks here in terms we can feel. Writers note that these early chapters often speak this way:
No doubt, as is so typical of these early revelations, grace shapes the words in a childlike way for the heart and conscience of man. The LORD felt deeply what man ought to have felt but did not.
Words fitted to us are not words emptied of truth. One writer weighs what this grief must have cost God, then asks a hard question:
God is infinitely great, and His holy nature is spotless and pure. So His grief must have been infinite. Yet He must have known in advance that this great grief would come to Him through the fall and corruption of mankind. Why then did God make man, and then let him stay on earth after causing Him such untold grief?
Set beside the opening chapters, the verse reverses God's own verdict on His work:
At the end of Genesis 2 God called everything, man included, "very good." Once man had been very good in God's eyes. Now he was nothing but grief to look at. The break was complete.
If God can repent of making man, a believer might wonder whether He can repent of saving one. The distinction drawn is between an act and a gift:
The gifts of God are without change of mind on His part. When it is not a gift or a calling of God, He may repent. So He repented of creation (Gen. 6:6), as we are told; and He destroyed it. That was not a gift; but simply an act, however immense. But in sovereign love He calls poor guilty men to Himself to make them His own. He gives eternal life, for instance, or forgiveness of our sins, or the place of a child. Such gifts are the gifts and calling of God, and they come without any change of mind.
Grief is not God's last word about man. The delight He lost is found again in Christ, the child born at Bethlehem:
All this delight was changed; God repented that He had made man on the earth. But in the Child of Bethlehem man is recovered and set up again. God delights in this man, and no such change of mind is possible. No other object in all His creation could awaken the same delight.
- Seen — God judged what man did and what man was: corruption and violence outside, evil thoughts within.
- Felt — God found nothing good to credit in man. He felt what man should have felt and did not.
- Worded — "repented" means a changed attitude, not remorse. Scripture uses childlike terms so our hearts can take it in.
- Unchanged — God may repent of an act like creation. He never repents of a gift: eternal life, forgiveness, the place of a child.
- Restored — the delight God lost in the first man returns in Christ, and nothing can reverse it.
And Jehovah said, I will destroy Man, whom I have created, from the earth -- from man to cattle, to creeping things, and to fowl of the heavens; for I repent that I have made them.
God here decides to wipe out the human race He had made, along with the animals, birds and creeping things. The verse raises two hard questions: can God feel grief, and can God change His mind?
Scripture here speaks of God in human terms. One writer explains why:
Verse 6 tells us how all this affected the Lord. Here for the first time Scripture gives God human feelings. Only in this way could we understand such a matter, and there is nothing out of place in it, since God made man in His own image and likeness. But God's thoughts and feelings must be far deeper and far higher than any man knows. How great His grief must have been! All was good at the start. Now all was so detestable that nothing could meet the case but the total destruction of mankind, apart from a few, and of the living creation God had entrusted to man.
The verse also uses God's personal name, "the LORD" — Jehovah in older translations — and not the general word "God." One writer explains what that name signals:
The name Jehovah is needed where the point is not nature but relationship — the feelings and the position it brings.
The verse ends with God saying He is sorry He made them. That sounds like God admitting a mistake, and one commentator draws a careful line here:
But here we must make a distinction, or we will certainly go badly wrong. Scripture says here that the LORD repented of mankind, whom He had made on the earth. His work is a thing quite different from His purpose. Corruption spread all through it, and He had no duty to keep in existence what existed only to His dishonour. On the other hand, when a prophet cried out against a great city because of its wickedness, and its people repented at the preaching, God repented of the harm He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it… But here we are not told of the slightest effect.
Another writer contrasts God's creation with God's calling:
God did repent of creation, in the state it had reached… But God's calling is His purpose. He has sworn in His holiness, and He will not repent.
God does not describe the doomed race as strangers. He calls them the ones He created. Some deny that unconverted people are God's creatures at all. One writer answers that teaching from this verse:
Genesis 6:7: God says, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land." But according to this teaching, He had not created at all what He was going to destroy.
The sentence reaches past people to beasts, creeping things and birds. One writer draws out what that says about sin:
Yet animals, creeping things and birds fall under this awesome destruction too, for man's sin has involved the rest of the earthly creation. People may say that when they sin they have damaged only themselves. But man's sin always affects others too, even creatures that cannot reason.
The story does not end there. The same writer points to what waits for that fallen creation:
The creation fell with the first man. But God's word says all its groaning waits for the triumph of the Second man, when the sons of God are revealed. What joy to know it!
Notice who hears this sentence. God does not just announce it from a distance. One writer traces how personally He acts here:
How much interest the Lord God takes in the whole state of things in that day! Just as we all feel, His eye affects His heart. And then, just as we all do, He takes counsel with Himself… And after all this, just as we ourselves would do, He settles His mind and tells it to a friend. He passes it to the ear, the heart and the sympathies of another.
Noah's response shows what the warning was for:
His faith accepted God's warning, and that warning moved him to fear. Fear moved him to act.
- Grief — for the first time, Scripture gives God human feelings. His grief runs far deeper than any grief we know.
- Regret — God repents of His work in its ruined state, never of His purpose. He has sworn to His calling and will not repent of it.
- Created — the people He judges are still the ones He made. Judgment does not cancel His place as their Creator.
- Reach — the sentence spreads from man to beast and bird. Sin never stays inside the sinner, and creation's groan waits for the Second man.
- Result — God tells the decision to a friend. Noah's faith turned that warning into fear, and fear into action.