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 YHWH 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. Then YHWH 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. YHWH was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen 6:1-6)There has long been a debate about this text. It talks about "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men." And it talks about "the Nephilim." What in the world are we talking about? There are three basic ideas about how this should be understood. One view argues that it refers to ancient rulers (sons of God) who claimed divine status and took "daughters of men." Weak. The two primary views are "fallen angels" or "the line of Seth" for "sons of God."
It's interesting because it seems as if your interpretation will depend on your preconceived ideas about demons and angels. It says "the sons of God" took wives." That "took" is generally a forceful word, not a "wooing." So, biblically, Hebraically, the language would say that "the sons of God" refers to angelic (or demonic) beings. EVERY time the phrase is used elsewhere, that's what it's referring to. In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, the text refers to a gathering in God's presence that included Satan. Not the sons of Seth. In Job 38:7, God asks Job about Creation. He says that "all the sons of God shouted for joy." Clearly not sons of Seth. There are references to the children of Israel as God's "son" (singular) and the coming Messiah as His "Son" (singular), but all "sons of God" references elsewhere specifically indicate supernatural (angelic or demonic) beings. So linguistically this would be the case. The objection is that Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, but this isn't a marriage in heaven. It's an earthly event ... and they're taken forcefully by fallen angels. And according to the text, these "marriages" resulted in "the Nephilim." What about a marriage between Seth's line and Cain's line would produce "Nephilim"? And why would marriage between Seth's and Cain's offspring precipitate the Flood? It's all very sketchy to me and doesn't seem to warrant the outcome.
Now if we're talking about fallen angels taking on human form and breeding with human women, what would that mean? First, clearly these "Nephilim" -- the "mighty men" (literally "the fallen") -- would be the offspring. And, consider ... God told the serpent in the Garden, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise Him on the heel" (Gen 3:15). The serpent (Satan) knew his downfall would come from Eve ... from a human woman. If he could eliminate the line of women by "seeding" corruption, perhaps he could prevent that. (He orchestrated the murder of every child under 2 years old in Bethlehem to try the same thing (Matt 2:16-18).) The introduction of human and demonic seed on the planet would warrant the elimination of that ... corruption and the Flood would make perfect sense. Otherwise ... we just seem to have a quiet warning that good boys shouldn't marry bad girls ... because, I guess, they could end up destroying the world. I don't know ...
Mind you, nothing to get up in arms about. Just some musings.
11 comments:
Just for the record, there ARE more than three possible options, but only three that give the text any useful meaning, since I recently eliminated the "Genesis is myth" option. If "myth," it would appear that the first 11 chapters were intended as the author's opportunity to meander through vague notions of some ethical or cosmic boundaries collapsing, about the hubris of humans causing chaos, the abuse of power, the dangers of human pride ... all ... very vague and entirely subjective.
I find that passage a real “head-scratcher.” At initial reading, I would rule out “the sons of God” being “the line of Seth”--for the reasons you gave plus this point of reason: growing up surrounded by women, these men would not have suddenly noticed that the women all around them were beautiful, prompting them to procure mates (as Gen. 6:2 implies), as “newcomers” of sorts might more reasonably do.
The “fallen angels” theory creates many questions for me. If “the sons of God” were angelic beings (and genderless in heaven), how truly human were the male bodies they adopted? Obviously, enough to mate and reproduce with human women--i.e. producing sperm with compatible DNA to pass on to offspring. (Why didn’t some choose to pose as women and enjoy all the Mighty Men around?) How would such a transformation be possible without God’s involvement (and permission)? If the offspring from these unions were “giants,” was that for both male and female offspring? Or were only males (and no females) born from these unions? If so, wouldn’t that have been problematic in a fairly short time? Wouldn’t the corrupted DNA in these giants have created serious mutations in short order, precluding successful procreation? And did these angel-men posing as husbands and fathers then also age, die, and get buried, like their wives and children?
In any event, it’s a good thing that the Lord put an end to it!
“… [W]e just seem to have a quiet warning that good boys shouldn't marry bad girls.” That made me laugh! To me, it seemed more like bad boys marrying good girls.
I believe that the only theory about the “sons of God” which makes sense is that they were fallen angels. I think the most rational understanding is that the Nephilim were indeed the offspring of the union of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” whether or not the fallen angels were direct sires or indirect via possession.
Funny, Lorna, but you're mixing up explanations. In one, the "sons of God" are demonic. In the other, they're the "good kids" from Seth and the "daughters of men" are the "bad girls" from Cain.
Well, we do know that angels appeared as men at various points. Clearly fallen angels don't suffer from gender dysphoria. And the corruption of DNA could very well have been the intent ... which is one reason for the Flood ... clear the gene pool.
Got it. (I thought you ruled out “the line of Seth,” so I didn’t quite pick up on that.)
By the way, you wrote, “There are references to the children of Israel as God's ‘son’ (singular) and the coming Messiah as His ‘Son’ (singular), but all ‘sons of God’ references elsewhere specifically indicate supernatural (angelic or demonic) beings.” Actually, Matt. 5:9, Luke 20:36, Rom. 8:14, and Gal. 3:26 use “sons of God” in reference to regular people (and John 1:12 uses “children of God,” of course). It seems that the term refers to angels in the OT and to believers in Christ in the NT. Did you mean just OT references in your statement?
Sorry. I wasn't precise enough in my explanation. I was referencing the Old Testament phrase. Most of the New Testament references aren't in Hebrew.
Then the Flood didn't fully work? Or was there Nephilim blood in Noah's line? Because the Nephilim were still around in David's time. And Paul's warning about women covering their heads really was about preventing the temptation of angels again? Have the angels then gotten better at controlling their urges since women most definitely don't care about tempting the angels anymore (some of them might actually want to these days)?
You and Lorna crack me up. She's asking about demon DNA and aging aliens and you're asking about the source of Nephilim in David's day ... like I know the answers. As for angels and urges, I would suspect that, like every other temptation that is common to man, God controls what we are given and could very easily stop fallen angels from doing such things anymore. Also ... the godly line required for the birth of the Christ is done ... the King has come ... so disrupting DNA to disrupt that plan is pointless now. But ... it sounds like you prefer the "godly line of Seth" answer?
Stan, It appears that in David and me you have met your match for “Monday morning musings.” (As I commented once in the past, you are not the only one very familiar with the interior of rabbit holes!) :-D
Post a Comment