Interpreting the Bible involves more than applying our own systematic theology to a given passage. We must look carefully at the text in light of its context, while employing both biblical theology and systematic theology.
In the previous post in this series on biblical theology, we took a closer look at Genesis 6:3 and examined an interpretation that has been favored by many creationists in recent decades. God had stated that His spirit would not “strive with” or “remain” in man indefinitely, and then He mentioned a judgment of some sort that had something to do with a 120-year time period. Here is the verse again:
And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
While most commentators believe this judgment had to do with God limiting man’s lifespan to 120 years, many creationists have adopted the position that the 120-year time span had to do with a countdown to the Flood—that God was giving man 120 years to turn from his wickedness. As we examined that idea, we saw that there were at least three problems with it. First, the text does not tell us that God spoke these words to a human, and when we compare this verse with all of the other passages in the first five chapters of Genesis, we can make a strong case that God was not speaking to a man or group of humans in this passage. So, how would man ever know that God was giving them 120 years to repent? Second, based on a lexical analysis, the word translated as “strive with” in some Bibles should probably be translated as “abide in,” which would strongly favor the reduction in lifespan view. Finally, even if it should be translated as “strive with,” the verse doesn’t quite make sense if we view it as a countdown to the Flood. That is, how would a 120-year countdown to the Flood resolve the issue of God’s spirit striving with man since mankind was still wicked after the Flood, and God’s spirit would still be striving with us today.
Before we turn our attention to discover how we can use biblical theology to better understand this verse, I need to explain how these two posts fit within the overall series. Those involved in creation apologetics generally focus on Genesis 1–11, since we see these chapters as providing the historical foundation for the biblical worldview. These chapters include major earth-shaping events, such as creation, man’s fall, the Flood, and the Babel event. Since Genesis 6:3 is right in the middle of these chapters, we need to be sure that we are properly interpreting this verse.
Genesis 6:3 and Biblical Theology
As we saw in the previous post, careful exegesis shows us that Genesis 6:3 should be understood as saying that God’s spirit would not “remain in” or “abide in” man indefinitely. This translation strongly favors the countdown view. It also gives us a reason for why man’s lifespan dropped rapidly after the flood—God withdrew some of His life-giving spirit that had enabled man to live so long.
Why would the Lord deliver this type of punishment on mankind? Clearly, this was a way in which God would limit the amount of wickedness humans could carry out. Instead of living nearly a thousand years, now they would have a maximum of 120 years to rebel against their Creator.
This punishment is also consistent with what God did when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. If they had not sinned, they would have lived forever, but their rebellion brought death upon themselves and the rest of creation (Romans 5:12; 8:20–22). The Lord banished them from the garden so that they could not take from the tree of life and live forever (Genesis 3:22–24). So, God had already reduced man’s limitless lifespan to about 1,000 years.1 Similarly, at Babel, God confused man’s language, which forced them to scatter. While He didn’t reduce their lifespans here, His judgment curbed their overall wickedness by keeping them apart.
We need to keep in mind how the original audience might have understood this passage. Imagine being one of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, or if you were able to go back and read the Bible for the first time without any prior knowledge of what it said, what would probably be going through your mind as you reached the end of Genesis 5? 930 years and he died…912 years and he died…910 years and he died…895 years and he died…969 years and he died…777 years and he died. It seems natural to start wondering, “Why did they live so long?” or put a different way, “Why don’t we live so long?” I have been asked these questions many times, so I know that a lot of people wonder about this. When the Israelites reached Mt. Sinai, none of them had experienced anything like the lifespans described in Genesis 5 and 11. So, it would make perfect sense that they would be wondering the same thing. If you’ve ever wondered this after reading Genesis 5, wouldn’t it be great if the Bible would give you the answer to that question? That’s exactly what it does in the very next passage—man’s lifespan will be limited to 120 years.
Beginning at the point, lifespans rapidly declined, and they continued to do so until Moses, the man who wrote this passage, lived 120 years. Since his time, only one person in the Bible is said to have lived longer—Jehoiada the priest lived 130 years (2 Chronicles 24:15). Perhaps God blessed him with a longer life because he and his wife rescued baby Joash from being killed along with all of his brothers by the wicked Queen Athaliah. Even in our day, the oldest people come close to 120, but they don’t reach it.2 And even if there are some exceptions, like Jehoiada, it doesn’t rule out the lifespan view of Genesis 6:3. God often makes exceptions in Scripture. For example, Hebrews 9:27 tells us that “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” But it seems that Lazarus and others raised from the dead in the Bible (other than Jesus) ended up dying twice.
Finally, there is another detail that is often overlooked in this discussion. The immediate context of this verse is not the Flood. Instead, it appears right in the middle of the passage about the enigmatic sons of God and the Nephilim. The text has not yet introduced the Flood, the Ark, or given a full description of man’s abundant wickedness on the earth. In fact, it is not until the following verses, Genesis 6:5–12, that the Bible gives us any indication that the world was filled with violence and other evils. Genesis 3 introduces man’s fall when Adam and Eve rebelled against God, and the next chapter tells us that Cain killed Abel and that one of Cain’s distant descendants was a murderer and polygamist (Genesis 4:19–24). Genesis 5 gives us the genealogy of Adam to Noah through Adam’s son Shem. There we read about Enoch, a man who “walked with God” (Genesis 5:24). By the time we reach Genesis 6, the only statement about the spiritual state of mankind in general tells us that when Seth’s son Enosh was born, men began to call on the name of the LORD (Genesis 4:26). So, why would a first-time reader think that this judgment has to do with something that hasn’t been mentioned yet?
Objection – “Forever” Contradicts the Lifespan View
One potential objection to the lifespan view is that if the passage means that God’s spirit would not “abide” or “remain” in man forever, then the verse doesn’t really seem make sense given its location in the biblical narrative. That is, mankind was not living “forever” at this point in history. Sure, it might have made sense if He said this to Adam and Eve when they sinned, because they were no longer going to be able to live forever. And although some of their descendants before the Flood lived very long lives of over 900 years, these people didn’t live forever. So, how does the lifespan view account for this dilemma.
This objection poses a good challenge if we were limited to reading this verse in English, because most of our Bibles do indeed translate the Hebrew word ‘olam as “forever.” However, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) gives its primary definition as a “long time, duration.” And the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon defines it as “long duration, antiquity, futurity.” Thus, the NET Bible’s use of “indefinitely” here makes better sense than forever: God’s spirit would not remain in man indefinitely.
Yes, ‘olam can mean forever, but there are numerous instances in the Old Testament, particularly in the five books of Moses, where it simply refers to a long time or an indefinite period of time. Let’s look at some examples where ‘olam refers to a long or indefinite period of time to demonstrate why this objection to the countdown view does not hold up.
- In Exodus 21:6, if a slave who was going to be set free in his seventh year of service decided that he wanted to remain with his master, then his master was to pierce his ear with an awl, and the slave “shall serve him forever” (‘olam). Obviously, this use of ‘olam cannot mean “forever” or “eternally.” It just refers to the rest of the man’s lifetime, so here it refers to a maximum of several decades.
- In Deuteronomy 23:3, ‘olam refers to a time period consisting of ten generations. Moses told the people, “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever” (‘olam).
- In Exodus 28:43, God gave Moses a command about the Levitical priests and their clothing that was to be “a statute forever (‘olam) to him [Aaron] and his descendants after him.” However, the book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Levitical system has been annulled (Hebrews 7:11–19; 8:13) and made obsolete through the new covenant instituted by Jesus Christ. So, ‘olam simply cannot mean forever in Exodus 28:43.
Many other examples could be cited, but three of them from the books of Moses should make it clear that ‘olam does not always mean “forever.” Instead, it is a flexible term that often refers to a long and indefinite period of time. If we use this meaning while reading Genesis 6:3, then it makes perfect sense in light of the lifespan view. God’s spirit was not going to remain in man for such a long time. When man lived nearly 1,000 years, God’s spirit abided in man for a long time, but with the pronouncement of the judgment in Genesis 6:3, this long period of time was going to be reduced to 120 years.
Why Would God Limit Man’s Lifespan Again?
This topic is explored in much greater detail in my book, Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim, which has been called the most detailed Bible study you can find on Genesis 6:1–4.
How does the lifespan view fit the context of Genesis 6:1–4? That is, why would this be a suitable punishment for the wickedness described here? Obviously, something happened in Genesis 6:1–2 to bring about such a harsh judgment from God that He would cut man’s lifespan from nearly 1,000 down to 120 years. I have written at length on Genesis 6:1–4 in my book, Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim. At nearly 500 pages, I believe it is the most detailed Bible study on this topic that you can find. The Bible tells us that rebellious angelic beings (Heb. bene ha ’elohim) married women, and their offspring were the Nephilim (giants).3 This was a sin against the natural order and contributed to the overall depravity of man that brought about the judgment of the Flood. Even if you disagree with my understanding of Genesis 6:1–4, it should still be clear why the sin described in these verses led to God reducing man’s lifespan? As we mentioned earlier, it would drastically curb the amount of wickedness a person could carry out in his lifetime. This would, in turn, reduce the overall amount of wickedness on the earth.
There is a possible second reason why God would dole out this punishment, but I’ll admit that this involves some speculation on my part. And even if this supposition on my part turns out to be inaccurate, it has no bearing on how Genesis 6:3 should be interpreted. My speculation here is solely about a possible reason why a reduction in man’s lifespan was an appropriate punishment for the sin described in Genesis 6:1–2. We know that the women (“daughters of men”) involved with the sons of God were not passive participants in these illicit unions. The Bible does not ascribe motives to the women who committed this sin. In Genesis 5, we repeatedly see the phrase “and he died” used for each person in that genealogy except for Enoch, stressing the certitude of the judgment God pronounced after Adam and Eve sinned. Perhaps the women who married the sons of God were trying to find a way to cheat death, not for themselves, but for their offspring. Since Adam had brought death upon himself and his descendants, mankind could not escape death. But what if these women thought that by having children with immortal heavenly beings, their offspring might possibly be immortal. Again, I know this point is highly speculative, but it would make sense of God’s judgment because the punishment would fit the crime. As humanity tried to find a way to overcome God’s first judgment in the garden, God responded accordingly. Instead of living forever (before Adam’s sin) or even to nearly 1,000 years (after Adam’s sin), now they would be limited to just 120 years.
Conclusion
This article demonstrated that the meaning of Genesis 6:3 becomes much clearer when we use biblical theology in addition to systematic theology. The conclusion is that this passage tells us that God said He was going to reduce man’s lifespan to 120 years. This makes perfect sense of the context and the narrative flow. It does not rely solely upon one’s systematic theology being imposed on the passage.
The lifespan view provides a very good explanation in the text itself as to why man’s lifespans were drastically reduced. And there is no need to hypothesize about how the lifespans were drastically shortened since the inspired text has already given us the answer—God withdrew some of His life-giving spirit. By not allowing His life-giving spirit to abide in man for such a long time, man’s lifespan was greatly reduced, which drastically limited the amount of wickedness he could carry out in his lifetime.
The Bible doesn’t clearly reveal the maximum lifespan of post-fall, pre-Flood man, but none of the individuals listed in Genesis 5 surpassed 1,000 years. ↩
Jeanne Calment reportedly lived to 122 years old, but a study published in 2018 demonstrates that she was almost certainly a fraud Nikolay Zak, “Jeanne Calment: The Secret of Longevity,” December 2018. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329773795_Jeanne_Calment_the_secret_of_longevity. Zak makes a very strong case that Jeanne died in 1934 at the age of 58, and her daughter Yvonne assumed her identity to avoid France’s steep inheritance tax that the family had recently paid when Jeanne’s father passed away a couple of years earlier. Then Yvonne lived until her death in 1997 at the age of 98, but because she had assumed her mother’s identity, she claimed to have been 122 at the time. ↩
As mentioned in this paragraph, I have written extensively on this topic. Interested readers are encouraged to pick up a copy of my book, Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim. Before I published this book, I completed and defended my Th.M. thesis on this passage. You can also check out a series of posts I published in 2011, beginning with this one. Readers are free to disagree with my conclusions on the subject, but do not try to turn the comments section of this article into a debate over the sons of God and the Nephilim. Use one of the articles in my series on that topic for such a discussion, but do not simply repeat some of the same arguments that I have already addressed multiple times or I will probably not approve the comment since there is no need to spend time debating the same issues the I have already covered. ↩
