And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:12–13)

What Does “All Flesh” Mean?

Many commentators over the years have maintained that “all flesh” refers only to “all human flesh” even though the animals also face the consequences of mankind’s sin—death due to the floodwaters. For example, John Calvin in his commentary on Genesis states:

But it is not wonderful that those animals, which were created for man’s sake, and lived for his use, should participate in his ruin: neither asses, nor oxen, nor any other animals, had done evil; yet being in subjection to man when he fell, they were drawn with him into the same destruction. The earth was like a wealthy house, well supplied with every kind of provision in abundance and variety. Now, since man has defiled the earth itself with his crimes, and has vilely corrupted all the riches with which it was replenished, the Lord also designed that the monument of his punishment should there be placed: just as if a judge, about to punish a most wicked and nefarious criminal, should, for the sake of greater infamy, command his house to be razed to the foundation. And this all tends to inspire us with a dread of sin; for we may easily infer how great is its atrocity, when the punishment of it is extended even to the brute creation.1

Commentator Matthew Poole likewise echoes this sentiment.

For as the beasts were made for man’s use and service, so they are destroyed for man’s punishment, and to discover the malignity of sin, and God’s deep abhorrency thereof, by destroying those innocent creatures that had been made instrumental to it.2

The contextual justification for interpreting kŏl bāśār as only relating to humanity would be depiction of increasing human sin culminating in Lamech’s polygamy and murderous wrath (wrapped in blasphemous language) in Genesis 4:23–24, the continuous thoughts of only evil in the hearts of all people which causes God to pronounce a judgment that man’s days shall be 120 years (6:3), and that it was specifically mankind’s wickedness and violence that caused God to regret that he created them (6:5, 6:13).

But there are several theologians over the years who point out problems with this view exegetically. First of all, the term “all flesh” is left unstipulated. It would have been easy enough for Moses to insert אנשים ’ănāšîm (men or people) to make the text unambiguous.

Additionally, there are contextual clues that the violence and corruption in creation are not limited to humanity. In Genesis 6:7, God says, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” God’s regret is not limited to humanity, but all animals.

The fact that he did not do so and that he repeated the term “all flesh” twice in these two verses and enumerated the wild and domesticated animals as well as winged animals previously in verse 7 likely means that two categories are in view here, mankind and animals. As it is, the antecedent for Genesis 6:12–13 (after the brief genealogy of Noah in verses 9–10) is Genesis 6:7, which includes man and animals, and God pronouncing that he was sorry he had made them. He did not say he was sorry that he had made ‘adam or ish, but the clear thought of the statement includes man and animals.

Kŏl bāśār seems to refer to the same group as does כל־היקום kŏl hăyqûm (every living thing) in Genesis 7:4. God’s covenant to never flood the earth again is with כל־נפש kŏl něp̄ěš (every living soul) and כל חית kŏl ḥăyyăṯ (every living thing), also supporting the idea that kŏl bāśār has a wider scope than just humanity. One commentator notes, “Elsewhere in the narrative the phrase . . . consistently refers to the animals as well as people.”3

Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951) also strongly believed that Genesis 6:12–13 (as well as other verses in the Deluge portion of Genesis 6–9) taught that the animals were included in the “all flesh” condemnation.

This phrase which sometimes denotes human beings only…includes in our section all living things as we learn expressly from the subsequent verses (6:17, 19; 7:15–16, 21; 8:17, etc.) . . .  Scripture may have wished to hint at it here to forestall the question: But why were the animals destroyed if they were free from transgression?4

The NET Bible notes state that “The OT sometimes views animals as morally culpable (Gen 9:5; Exod 21:28–29; Jonah 3:7–8). The OT also teaches that a person’s sin can contaminate others (people and animals) in the sinful person’s sphere (see the story of Achan, especially Josh 7:10[ff]). So the animals could be viewed here as morally contaminated because of their association with sinful humankind.”5

If animals are intended as among the “corrupt” in Genesis 6:11–12, then we must also notice that they had corrupted their own way, which means that man and animals had not just become corrupted passively—but had actively pursued this process (or in the case of animals, their corruption might have become instinctual). It doesn’t mean they were created this way—it means that they were enticed into corruption and enjoyed it, or it became an instinctual part of their nature.

Cassuto again addresses this subject: “This sentence [referring to the phrase “corrupted their way”] comes as it were, to explain explicitly the nature of the earth’s corruption that was mentioned twice earlier; the corruption of the earth means the moral corruption of all flesh.”6

A Rabbinical Assembly paper stated much the same: “The story of the flood begins with a statement of the earth’s corruption and God’s decision to destroy the earth. Only Noah is righteous in his generation; God calls on him to build an ark and to gather all of the animals and birds on the earth along with his family. But what was the nature of the earth’s corruption? The Bible uses two words but never tells us what the evil might have been: hamas, lawlessness; and hashhata, corruption. While the sages speculated on the nature of the moral corruption that made the world worthy of destruction, we do not know what it is. What is interesting is that the second verb, hashhatah, is used four times in these three short verses. Hashhatah refers not only to corruption but to the destruction of the planet. It is not just humanity that has become corrupt but animals and even the earth.”7

Commentator James McKeown adds, “Although the sinfulness of humankind is given as a reason for the flood, the violence that fills the earth is not limited to humans but ‘all flesh’ is implicated, which of course includes the animals (6:12). Thus the passage suggests that the animals’ behavior has become violent as a result of or, perhaps, in response to human violence. Animals are not to blame, but they are caught up and have adopted the dysfunctional behavior of their human cohabitants of earth.”8

There are two predominant chains of thought as to how, why, or what the animals had done to be considered corrupt.

While there are several hypotheses regarding these Genesis 6 verses, if one believes these passages are teaching the corruption of animals along with man, there are two predominant chains of thought as to how, why, or what the animals had done to be considered corrupt, and they will be outlined below:

Hypothesis 1: The animals had become violently carnivorous. The omnivores and carnivores were rampant and were killing and eating mankind and were in danger of wiping out the herbivores and ultimately therefore causing extinction and going extinct. This hypothesis is based on two components: animals were not yet afraid of man, and mankind was still commanded to be vegetarian, so he wouldn’t have had a need to be actively hunting animals. Of course, in this pre-flood world where mankind was also exceedingly wicked and corrupt, he probably violated God’s command against eating meat, and so some people could have been hunting animals. But early post-fall this would not have been the case, and animal populations probably rapidly increased. In later post-fall/pre-flood years, this would allow the omnivores and carnivores more room to expand their territories, and without natural predators and with parasites and microbial pathogens not as numerous or as virulent as now, they would have lived in greater numbers (and presumably based on pre-flood man’s lifespan) lived much longer.

Dr. Henry Morris, in the study notes for Genesis 6:12, mentions that this view (carnivorous animals) may be in the “all flesh” view here: “This verse may possibly imply the development of carnivorous appetites and increasing hostility to man by the animals.”9

Dillman and Stevenson had earlier taken this view:

For all flesh had corrupted its way, the manner of life and conduct prescribed to it, was therefore degenerate. Not men alone, but, according to the regular meaning of “basar”, even the animals had learnt to show enmity to one another, and to pursue and slay one another.10

Chun Sik Park in his doctoral dissertation also takes this meaning.

If “all flesh” in Gen 6:12 indicated both humankind and animals, the text describes that the animal kingdom was corrupt and brutal. The earth was corrupted by human and subhuman creatures. The earth was the victim of human and subhuman violence. The flood was a means of purifying the earth from its defilement.11

Hypothesis 2: The animals had been corrupted by man. Since they were not afraid of man, this theory postulates that almost all animals were tamed by mankind and were then trained to do vile and violent acts. Some scholars believe that mankind had turned animals into objects of bestiality or cultic worship and that many were trained to be killers of other animals and people. Although revolting to even think about, this theory does seem to have merit, especially considering the fact that the Mosaic Law had to specifically list these offenses and proscribe the death penalty for them almost 2,000 years later (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15–16). Indeed, Romans 1:22–32 hints at these practices as still being practiced in that day.

In Ellicot’s Commentary, R. Payne Smith seems to take the second view.

All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth—These material things were incapable alike of moral good or evil, but man had made them the instruments of working his carnal will, and because of the associations connected with them they must be effaced, or rubbed out.12

Some Jewish rabbis and commentators on Genesis 6 also take this view.

For all flesh had corrupted: Even cattle, beasts, and fowl would mate with those who were not of their own species. — [from Tan. Noach 12]”13

The Tanakh indicates that animals are held responsible for their deeds. They are punished either separately or jointly with humanity. In the Paradise story, the snake tempts Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge: thereafter it is doomed to crawl on its belly and eat dirt all of its days. In the days of Noah, the animals are punished alongside the humans: When God saw how corrupt the earth was, for all flesh had corrupted its ways on earth, God said to Noah, “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to destroy them with the earth.”14

Therefore, though at first it may seem like animals were solely destroyed because of man’s sin, it may actually have been a mercy from God that the animals on the ark were preserved from ultimate extinction by other animals and man or by judgment from God for being involved in bestial practices. Bear in mind that the post-flood and Mosaic punishment for animal violence against man (if hypothesis 1 is correct) was death for the animal (Genesis 9:5–6; Exodus 21:28). And the Levitical punishment for animal bestiality was death for both man (or woman) and animal (Leviticus 20:15–16; but see also Exodus 19:22; Leviticus 18:23; Deuteronomy 27:21). So in this view, the death sentence on these animals (if hypothesis 2 is correct) was in accord with the punishment which is recorded to be enacted for these abominations in later revelation. In any event, in the judgment of the flood, God wiped out all of that pre-flood life not on the ark, and then put the fear of man in post-flood animals which helped disperse them and kept them from being caught and tamed (and corrupted) as a whole.

At the time of the flood, God instructed Noah to save two of every kind and seven (or seven pairs) of the clean animals. It is quite possible that God providentially brought to Noah the animals least affected (or perhaps too young as yet to have been tainted) by these corruptions. These ark animals speciated out after the flood and had the fear of mankind instilled into them; perhaps to forestall any propensity to the pre-flood violence and (possibly) bestiality. So in effect, if either or both of these “corrupted animals” views are correct, God used the flood to generate new genera and species of animals (from their created kinds) not contaminated with the problems their pre-flood ancestors may have had. This may also further illuminate the possibility that God’s judgment on the land-dwelling, air-breathing animals was not a “dragnet” judgment where animals were caught up in a judgment for mankind, but one which was both a divine judgment on sin, animal corruption, and also a mercy to the post-flood animals to get a fresh start, not contaminated with the issues of their pre-flood ancestors.

Please note that Answers in Genesis does not hold to any particular model or combination thereof on this subject. Christians have varying views on this subject (or perhaps have never even considered it), and this is obviously not a salvation issue. This is merely an attempt to outline some of the different thoughts on this topic and perhaps help to inform our understanding of the pre-flood world.