What does it mean that someone managed to live beyond 120 years?

Question

God Himself limited a human's lifespan to 120 years, as told in the following verse:

Genesis 6:3 (NLT)
³ Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”

Yet, Jeanne Calment managed to live for 122 years and 164 days, significantly more than 120 years. Does this mean that God's decree was somehow part of an old order of things that has since passed away or been overwritten, much like what Jesus did with the Law?

Answer 1

It's all relative, of course. Here's the immediate context:

When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.—Genesis 5:28-31 (ESV)

Compared to Lamech, Mme. Calment died regrettably young. She ought to still be in prime of her life.

However, the NET Bible footnote offers a simpler solution:

Heb “his days will be 120 years.” Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.

---

Further, we can see that Genesis contradicts the idea that 120 years is a hard limit:

These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.—Genesis 11:10-11 (ESV)

The ages do drop fairly rapidly. Nine generations later:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.—Genesis 11:32 (ESV)

Assuming a limit to the length of life is meant, the author(s) of Genesis seem to be thinking in terms of approximations or orders of magnitude. An occasional 122 (or 130) year-old is to be expected, but we don't see anyone living 500+ years anymore.

Answer 2

While @marc-gravell mentions that the 120 days until the flood interpretation is "hotly contested" I would say that is definitely the best interpretation. Even the link provided by Marc really talks more about the timeline for building the ark rather than contesting the "120 years to the flood" interpretation. The author of that article concludes that this is the best interpretation of Genesis 6:3.

If we take 120 years to as some average lifespan then the Bible completely misses this mark. Immediately following the flood the lifespans are still measured in the hundreds of years and by the end of the patriarchal period the lifespans drop well below a 120 year average. The main issue with interpreting this number as the years until the flood only occurs with the length of time it took Noah to build the ark. When we realize that the text doesn't require that Noah started building at the same year as the statement in 6:3 then the interpretation works rather well.

The problem stems from the poor translation of the NLT text. In attempting to make the text more "readable" they have inferred meaning that isn't required by the original text. Most (all?) scholarly translations do not force this meaning into the text of Genesis 6:3.