I would like to take Genesis Chapter 6 in several parts given that there are quite differing views here regarding (1) the cause of God’s anger to justify wiping the entire human race with the Flood and (2) the state of Noah when he was chosen by God to build the ark to continue the human race.
For this segment, I would like to concentrate on verses 1-4 which has generated contrasting views amongst many Christians. Having carefully considered all the views, I have come to my own preferred conclusion that fits more logically to God’s character and other passages of the Bible. However, you are free to disagree since belief in one view or another will not change the fundamental essence of the Biblical message.
For this segment, I would like to concentrate on verses 1-4 which has generated contrasting views amongst many Christians. Having carefully considered all the views, I have come to my own preferred conclusion that fits more logically to God’s character and other passages of the Bible. However, you are free to disagree since belief in one view or another will not change the fundamental essence of the Biblical message.
Here is the controversial passage in full:
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
In trying to understand the first 4 verses of Chapter 6, we need to understand the meaning of the 2 terminologies within, namely, sons of God and daughters of men in verse 2, and how they are linked to the Nephilim and mighty men described in verse 4.
From these 4 verses, 3 views have spawned on the key phrase of the Bible, sons of God, - (a) The Angels (cosmological mixed) view, (b) the Line of Seth (religiously mixed) view and (c) the Tyrants (sociologically mixed) view. I don't intend to describe in details the 3 views as there are many already available on the internet (just google "Genesis 6 Interpretation" and you get the picture). You can access this site to get a brief description of the various views. What I intend to do highlight some of the points of the various views.
The Tyrants / Line of Seth (Human) Views
Both these views take a human view of the term, sons of God (there is an alternate demon-possessed Tyrants view which we will not discussed here). After doing much reading of the various views, I come to the conclusion that the main motivation for adopting a human view of the term, sons of God, is purely to avoid the alternative connotation, i.e., of angels, with the aim of not introducing doctrinal or theological difficulties.
In the Line of Seth view, proponents argued that the sons of God referred to the godly line of Seth while the daughters of men referred to the ungodly line of Cain. God's anger was kindled because the righteous line of Seth intermarried with the unrighteous line of Cain resulting in the corruption of society.
Firstly, equating sons of God as the godly line of Seth is reading too much into the text. (1) In the line of Seth, only Enoch was explicitly mentioned in the Bible to have "walked with God". (2) To have a statement, "began to call upon the name of the Lord", after the birth of Enosh to Seth does not necessary imply that the entire line of Seth was godly. Furthermore, we should note that this statement could be translated into something diametrically different (see post). (3) Even in the case where Noah "found favour in the eyes of the Lord", my opinion is that this had nothing whatsoever to do with Noah but grace shown by God to him. In summary, there is nothing in the Bible to explicitly equate sons of God with the line of Seth, godly or otherwise notwithstanding.
I have already mentioned in an earlier post that Moses compiled Genesis from 11 books or records of generations (see here). To read a "flow" of chapter 4 into chapter 5 is unfortunate. The term sons of God is used for those who are a direct creation of God. Hence the angels are called sons of God. In the human line, only Adam was called a son of God. The rest of Adam's descendants are called sons of men. In the New Testament, Christians are called sons of God because of their new birth (or creation) in Christ (Luke 20:35-37, Romans 8:13-15, Romans 18-20, Galatians 3:25-27). Cain was also a son of Adam so it is inconsistent that people don't want to link the line of Cain to constitute the sons of God. In summary, this "implication" that the line of Seth constitute the sons of God cannot be inferred from the Bible.
In the similar way that Enoch does not imply the entire line of Seth was godly, the mention of the actions of Cain and Lamech also do not imply that the entire line of Cain was ungodly since the Bible gave no such indications. If we try to read into the meanings behind the names, we can also make the assertion that there were godly people in the line of Cain (e.g., Enoch and Methushael).
Even we accept the premise that the sons of God equal godly line of Seth, linking daughters of men to ungodly line of Cain is even more dubious. Thomas Howe linked it from a simplistic use of the word "good" / "beautiful" in reference to the daughter of men (Gen 6:2) to Naamah, a descendant of the line of Cain (Gen 4:22) and ultimately to the assertion that daughters of men were the ungodly line of Cain. This is extremely tenuous and ignores the fate of the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve borned after Cain and Seth. This view also make no mention of who did the daughters of God (daughters of the line of Seth) marry. The language of verse 2 is decidedly one-way, that is, the sons of God tooks wives (the daughters of men) for themselves, whomever they chose.
Furthermore, Genesis only mentioned that "the sons of God [Seth] saw that the daughters of men [Cain] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose". No mention was made of the daughters of God marrying the sons of men that should have logically taken place if the Line of Seth view is adopted.
To me, the archille heel of the Line of Seth view is why would God made the statement in verse 3 that His Spirit will not strive with men forever just on the basis that the godly sons of Seth married the ungodly daughters of Cain and dictated that humankind has 120 years left till the Flood? Why would the sons of God be termed as "godly" [line of Seth] if they married "ungodly" women [line of cain]??
Verses 5-7 are instructive in pointing out the reason for the Flood and it could possibly have nothing to do with whatever -mixed views we may have. But hold that thought till I have explained the Angels view.
The Angels View
The Angels or more precisely the Fallen Angels view is the oldest and will result from a direct literal reading from the text. My personal view is that verses 1-7 is actually a 2-parts narrative.
Verses 1-4 describes that the fallen angels (sons of God) came to procreate with daughters of men (in general and not of Cain line only). Proponents of this view pointed out that this was probably Satan's plan to thwart God's plan to corrupt the human race so that the seed of the woman will not be able to bruise Satan's head. Out of the union came the Nephilim and mighty men. There are many interpretation of what Nephilim means depending on the view one holds. The good thing is that this term is mentioned one other time in Numbers 13:32-33. While the passage does not give the meaning of the word Nephilim, one characteristic we can conclude was that they were men of great size and the Israelites were like grasshoppers in the Nephilim' sight. That is the reason why KJV translate Nephilim as giants.
The other issue is that why were there mentioning of Nephilim after the flood if only Noah and his family survived the Flood (specifically in Numbers 13:32-33). Actually, the spies who were with Joshua did not see any Nephilim. The mentioning of the sons of Anakim are part of the Nephilim was part of the overall exaggeration on the part of the spies. I say this because (1) the parenthesis was not in the original Hebrew text and (2) the Septuagint also did not have this parenthesis.
Since we are not able to find further clues from the Bible regarding this term, Nephilim, can we find any clues from the ancient translations? If we look at the Septuagint, the term Nephilim is translated as γιγαντες (gigantes). This was similarly translated into English as giants by Brenton. This is unfortunate as the term gigantes means more than giants in Greek mythology (see references in Wikipedia and Theoi.com). The use of this term by the Septuagint translators lent weight to the Angels view in that the gigantes in the Greek Mythology had a supernatural undertone.
Two New Testament passages also shed light to what actually happened in the days of Noah. Since they are critical to our understanding, I re-produced them in full here:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [2 Peter 2:4-5]
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 6-7]
The passage in 2 Peter clearly linked angels who sinned to the point that He did not spare the ancient world during Noah's time. What had these angels done to warrant God's punishment? This is where we turn to the passage in Jude. The angels mentioned in Jude "did not keep their proper domain, but abandoned their proper abode". These angels did, "in the same way", what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did. They "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh". The Angels view asserts that the "strange flesh" that the angels went after were that of the humankind. Why strange? Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry. Hence the fact that the sons of God "took wives for themselves, whomever they chose" was going for strange flesh for that was not what angels were created to do.
Objections to the Angels View
(1) The first objection is taken immediately from Jesus' quotation in Matthew 22:30. Jesus himself mentioned that angels do not marry. Some Angels view proponents make the assertion that it did not mean that Jesus said that they could not pro-create. However, within the context of what Jesus said, He did seemed to allude that angels do not have sex too. Others have made the distinction between the angels in heaven and that of the fallen angels. My take is that when God created angels, they did not need to eat or drink nor need to pro-create. However, they were recorded in the Bible to have ate and drank (see Genesis 18:1-8). Hence there is no reason to rule out emphatically why the angels cannot attempt to have sex. Angels are also not sexless. Angels are always described in the masculine form and appear as young men in the Bible. One other thing to note that these angels that had sex were already fallen and their fallen status was not because that they had sex with the humankind. They fell when they chose to follow Satan to rebel against God (see Revelation 12:3-4).
(2) The term "sons of God" did not always meant angels in the Old Testament (I have already explained what "sons of God" meant in the New Testament context earlier). Critics pointed to Hosea 1:10 as an example:
Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and in the place where it is said to them, "You are not My people," it will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."
Two points to note here: (a) the Hosea's passage did not use the exact term that Genesis and Job passages had - "bene elohim" but more importantly (b) the Hosea's passage clearly identify "the sons of Israel" as "the sons of the living God". Critics have to decide that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 either mean angels as in identified in Job or Israelites as identified in Hosea. Clearly, the Genesis passage does not identify "sons of God" as "sons of Seth". This is the interpretation imposed outside of the Bible passage context.
(3) Critics finally asked why were the humankind punished for what the fallen angels did. Here, we go back to verses 5 and 11-12 of Genesis 6:
Even we accept the premise that the sons of God equal godly line of Seth, linking daughters of men to ungodly line of Cain is even more dubious. Thomas Howe linked it from a simplistic use of the word "good" / "beautiful" in reference to the daughter of men (Gen 6:2) to Naamah, a descendant of the line of Cain (Gen 4:22) and ultimately to the assertion that daughters of men were the ungodly line of Cain. This is extremely tenuous and ignores the fate of the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve borned after Cain and Seth. This view also make no mention of who did the daughters of God (daughters of the line of Seth) marry. The language of verse 2 is decidedly one-way, that is, the sons of God tooks wives (the daughters of men) for themselves, whomever they chose.
Furthermore, Genesis only mentioned that "the sons of God [Seth] saw that the daughters of men [Cain] were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose". No mention was made of the daughters of God marrying the sons of men that should have logically taken place if the Line of Seth view is adopted.
To me, the archille heel of the Line of Seth view is why would God made the statement in verse 3 that His Spirit will not strive with men forever just on the basis that the godly sons of Seth married the ungodly daughters of Cain and dictated that humankind has 120 years left till the Flood? Why would the sons of God be termed as "godly" [line of Seth] if they married "ungodly" women [line of cain]??
Verses 5-7 are instructive in pointing out the reason for the Flood and it could possibly have nothing to do with whatever -mixed views we may have. But hold that thought till I have explained the Angels view.
The Angels View
The Angels or more precisely the Fallen Angels view is the oldest and will result from a direct literal reading from the text. My personal view is that verses 1-7 is actually a 2-parts narrative.
Verses 1-4 describes that the fallen angels (sons of God) came to procreate with daughters of men (in general and not of Cain line only). Proponents of this view pointed out that this was probably Satan's plan to thwart God's plan to corrupt the human race so that the seed of the woman will not be able to bruise Satan's head. Out of the union came the Nephilim and mighty men. There are many interpretation of what Nephilim means depending on the view one holds. The good thing is that this term is mentioned one other time in Numbers 13:32-33. While the passage does not give the meaning of the word Nephilim, one characteristic we can conclude was that they were men of great size and the Israelites were like grasshoppers in the Nephilim' sight. That is the reason why KJV translate Nephilim as giants.
The other issue is that why were there mentioning of Nephilim after the flood if only Noah and his family survived the Flood (specifically in Numbers 13:32-33). Actually, the spies who were with Joshua did not see any Nephilim. The mentioning of the sons of Anakim are part of the Nephilim was part of the overall exaggeration on the part of the spies. I say this because (1) the parenthesis was not in the original Hebrew text and (2) the Septuagint also did not have this parenthesis.
Since we are not able to find further clues from the Bible regarding this term, Nephilim, can we find any clues from the ancient translations? If we look at the Septuagint, the term Nephilim is translated as γιγαντες (gigantes). This was similarly translated into English as giants by Brenton. This is unfortunate as the term gigantes means more than giants in Greek mythology (see references in Wikipedia and Theoi.com). The use of this term by the Septuagint translators lent weight to the Angels view in that the gigantes in the Greek Mythology had a supernatural undertone.
Two New Testament passages also shed light to what actually happened in the days of Noah. Since they are critical to our understanding, I re-produced them in full here:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [2 Peter 2:4-5]
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. [Jude 6-7]
The passage in 2 Peter clearly linked angels who sinned to the point that He did not spare the ancient world during Noah's time. What had these angels done to warrant God's punishment? This is where we turn to the passage in Jude. The angels mentioned in Jude "did not keep their proper domain, but abandoned their proper abode". These angels did, "in the same way", what the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did. They "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh". The Angels view asserts that the "strange flesh" that the angels went after were that of the humankind. Why strange? Jesus said it Himself in Matthew 22:30 that angels do not marry. Hence the fact that the sons of God "took wives for themselves, whomever they chose" was going for strange flesh for that was not what angels were created to do.
Objections to the Angels View
(1) The first objection is taken immediately from Jesus' quotation in Matthew 22:30. Jesus himself mentioned that angels do not marry. Some Angels view proponents make the assertion that it did not mean that Jesus said that they could not pro-create. However, within the context of what Jesus said, He did seemed to allude that angels do not have sex too. Others have made the distinction between the angels in heaven and that of the fallen angels. My take is that when God created angels, they did not need to eat or drink nor need to pro-create. However, they were recorded in the Bible to have ate and drank (see Genesis 18:1-8). Hence there is no reason to rule out emphatically why the angels cannot attempt to have sex. Angels are also not sexless. Angels are always described in the masculine form and appear as young men in the Bible. One other thing to note that these angels that had sex were already fallen and their fallen status was not because that they had sex with the humankind. They fell when they chose to follow Satan to rebel against God (see Revelation 12:3-4).
(2) The term "sons of God" did not always meant angels in the Old Testament (I have already explained what "sons of God" meant in the New Testament context earlier). Critics pointed to Hosea 1:10 as an example:
Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered; and in the place where it is said to them, "You are not My people," it will be said to them, "You are the sons of the living God."
Two points to note here: (a) the Hosea's passage did not use the exact term that Genesis and Job passages had - "bene elohim" but more importantly (b) the Hosea's passage clearly identify "the sons of Israel" as "the sons of the living God". Critics have to decide that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 either mean angels as in identified in Job or Israelites as identified in Hosea. Clearly, the Genesis passage does not identify "sons of God" as "sons of Seth". This is the interpretation imposed outside of the Bible passage context.
(3) Critics finally asked why were the humankind punished for what the fallen angels did. Here, we go back to verses 5 and 11-12 of Genesis 6:
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
Clearly, the fallen angels' actions were only part of the story. Humankind did the rest. The 2nd Peter and Jude passages that we talked about earlier also clearly stated that these fallen angels did not escape punishment from God.
In summary, verses 1-4 state that the fallen angels, probably under Satan's order, sought to corrupt the seed of the woman to prevent God's judgment from happening by marrying and having relations with the women. Together with this development, men's wickedness became great, so great that God pronounced His judgment. Even in His anger, he had hoped for restoration and gave humankind a long 120 years to repent (verse 3). Contrary to certain viewpoints, this was not a limitation of the number of year that human beings can live. If it were, then God (and Moses) was obviously wrong since even Jacob lived all the way up to 147 years-old (Genesis 47:28). If you need further convincing, 1 Peter 3:18-20 alluded to this:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
Verse 3 stated that the offsprings of these unnatural union were the Nephilim (many translate as "fallen ones") and they were described as "gibborim", translated as mighty men in English. Moses "sarcastically" labelled that they "were of old, men of renown". The term "in those days and also after that" in verse 4 does not mean that the Nephilim were on the earth before the inter-mixing nor that they were there after the Flood (as explained earlier). Rather, it is a repetition that the Nephilim were the product of the inter-marriage between the fallen angels and human women in those days and also after that.
As I have mentioned from the very beginning, whatever your viewpoint on this issue, it will not have any bearing on the key doctrines of Christianity. However, it is the plain reading of the text and the "best" view in my opinion to make the readings of other passages like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude less contrived. Most importantly, all agree that the earth at that time was entirely corrupt and God pronounced judgment on the earth.
In summary, verses 1-4 state that the fallen angels, probably under Satan's order, sought to corrupt the seed of the woman to prevent God's judgment from happening by marrying and having relations with the women. Together with this development, men's wickedness became great, so great that God pronounced His judgment. Even in His anger, he had hoped for restoration and gave humankind a long 120 years to repent (verse 3). Contrary to certain viewpoints, this was not a limitation of the number of year that human beings can live. If it were, then God (and Moses) was obviously wrong since even Jacob lived all the way up to 147 years-old (Genesis 47:28). If you need further convincing, 1 Peter 3:18-20 alluded to this:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
Verse 3 stated that the offsprings of these unnatural union were the Nephilim (many translate as "fallen ones") and they were described as "gibborim", translated as mighty men in English. Moses "sarcastically" labelled that they "were of old, men of renown". The term "in those days and also after that" in verse 4 does not mean that the Nephilim were on the earth before the inter-mixing nor that they were there after the Flood (as explained earlier). Rather, it is a repetition that the Nephilim were the product of the inter-marriage between the fallen angels and human women in those days and also after that.
As I have mentioned from the very beginning, whatever your viewpoint on this issue, it will not have any bearing on the key doctrines of Christianity. However, it is the plain reading of the text and the "best" view in my opinion to make the readings of other passages like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude less contrived. Most importantly, all agree that the earth at that time was entirely corrupt and God pronounced judgment on the earth.
Was Noah the exception? Find out next.
Happy New Year ahead!
Shalom,
ReplyDeleteWell done blog entry. Keep up the good work.
Shalom Aleichem
Thanks for your kind encouragement.
ReplyDeleteAleichem Shalom.