1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
O . . . . . kay.
Until a few months ago, this was one of the passages in Genesis, and in fact the entire Bible, that I chose to ignore. Talking snakes and donkeys, a longhaired strong man, and a huge boat filled with an old man and a whole lot of animals I could handle. This story crossed the line.
However, as I’ve approached it in the context of the rest of the book of Genesis, as I’ve approached Genesis in the greater context of the history and culture in which it emerged, I’ve come to appreciate this story as well as any of the other epic tales in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
Who are the sons of God?
At first read, it sounds to us like some sort of cross breeding between gods or demons with human women are creating hybrid human/demon creatures that become giant heroes in the world. Indeed, this remained a popular interpretation of both Jewish and Christian theologians until around the fourth century CE. In fact, until 200 CE, it was the unanimous Christian and Jewish interpretation of recent history that they were fallen angels. The extrabiblical (as in, not part of canon or considered to be scriptural) Jewish book of 1 Enoch tells the story of these unions. Job 1:6, 38:7 identify "sons of god" as angels. However, Job uses an ancient Hebrew different than the rest of the OT, and frequently uses words, idioms and, figures of speech not found anywhere else in scripture. Etymological interpretation of Hebrew words based on Job alone with no other examples is always questionable.
Jewish and Christian interpretations diverge
After 200 CE the Jewish and Christian interpretations diverged. Jewish interpretations called sons of God rulers and kings, while Christians called them descendants of Seth. Christians identified the daughters of men as descendants of Cain. This was Augustine's interpretation, and is still popular with many Christians and some conservative Bible teachers, like Hank Hanegraaff.
The classic Christian interpretation – sons of god are sons of Cain
In Luke 24:39 Jesus said that spirits do not have flesh and blood. Genesis says that creatures multiply according to their kinds. If fallen angels could have children with humans, it would give them the ability to create, something only God can do. Jesus said that there is no marriage or giving in marriage after the resurrection, and there is likewise no indication in scripture that spiritual beings are sexual or have the ability to procreate. The hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 simply cannot be harmonized with any other understanding in the rest of Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible.
In early Christian history, the new idea emerged that the story was condemning the intermarriage of the line of Cain, the murderer, and the line of Seth, the righteous who call on God’s name. The idea is compared to later stories in Genesis where the family of Abraham avoids marrying people from other nations because of the unique covenant they have with Yahweh.
The difficulty with the Christian and Augustinian interpretation is that scripture does not give any clear indication that these two lines of people did not intermarry. Neither does the text explicitly state anywhere that the descendants of Cain were inherently evil and the descendants of Seth inherently good. Nowhere does it say that God condemned or prohibited marriage between the two lines. Finally, both Seth and Cain are descended from Adam and Eve, and both inherited from them the same human nature. Neither Biblical Theology nor this text describe anything inherently noble in Seth that is not in Cain, and nothing inherently evil in Cain that is not in Seth.
Furthermore, this interpretation contributes little to the theological understanding of the passage, or to the overall narrative of Genesis. Besides explaining away a difficult passage’s potentially incorrect theological and historical interpretation, it offers very little more of value or depth. This interpretation also leaves details unexplained, such as the mention of heroes or God’s declaration of the reduction of the length of human life.
The Orthodox Jewish interpretation – sons of god are sons of nobility
Orthodox Jewish interpretations have also consistently taught against the idea of “sons of God” as divine beings, translating the text and teaching that the story refers to “sons of nobles”.
The strength of the Jewish interpretation is in its consistency with the Ancient Babylonian custom of "the right of the first night", an oppressive practice performed by rulers over subjects during this period and others. In the Ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods declare that Gilgamesh owns “all the hymens of the virgins of Uruk”, the kingdom he rules. The ancient kings could claim the first night of marriage with any woman in the kingdom, as a symbol of the union of the kingdom’s residents with the gods. This has since been practiced in other cultures as well. Referring to rulers as "sons of god" is also a contemporary cultural practice. In Gilgamesh, the women of the kingdom were to anticipate with excitement the opportunity to unite with the king, called a son of god. Gilgamesh was said to be the son of deity, as were many of the kings of Babylon, and all the pharaohs of Egypt.
As for the size or heroic deeds of the rulers and their children, it is easy to assume that if there were an oppressive and evil ruling class in this ancient culture, they would likely be made up of the people more physically able to assert their dominance. Gilgamesh and his best friend, Enkidu, were described as being over sixteen feet tall. We can assume this is hyperbolic, however it also gives us an example of how the image of great size and physical strength is paired with heroic deeds, kingship, and the ruling class. Gilgamesh is unashamedly described as an oppressive king to the people of Uruk, and this oppressive rule inspires great respect in his friend, Enkidu. Again, these stories reveal the cultural values that could lead to very oppressive and violent characters being lauded as heroic in the ancient world.
The etymology of the word “Nephilim” also fits this interpretation. The Hebrew word has close connections to the words meaning “fall” and “ruin”. This may refer to their oppressive nature, or the fall from submission to the true justice of God. The word also has a close relation to “apostate”, suggesting that the Nephilim were men who had fully rejected God’s authority.
This text may be giving a "truer" story of the evils of the kings of old. When the other nations would revere and even worship these kings, this account shows that they weren't great or worthy of worship, but rather evil and oppressive. It is notable that the Genesis 1-11 has not yet once explicitly spoken of kings or kingdoms. Similarly, the ancient deities are also conspicuously absent in these first eleven chapters of Genesis. Whether god or king, Yahweh accepts no opposition to his sovereignty, and recognizes no authority as legitimate that does not recognize and reflect his. If this is an explicit reference to kings, it is the first mention in Genesis. If it is only implying, it seems the text is still going out of its way not to mention kings.
The continued story of the Fall
This passage shows us institutionalized wickedness and oppression. Humanity’s ways have become corrupt - bent and perverse - not according to the purpose they were originally created. Humans are violent. This is how God defines them as evil.
Up until this point, the genealogical record shows people living for hundreds of years. After this point, the records quickly show the length of human life reduced to about one hundred twenty years or fewer within a few generations. Whether we take these numbers literally or not does not matter. What we know is that before this time, the potential for long oppressive and violent reigns are possible. By God’s judgment, he removes from mankind the possibility of a single ruler having power over people for more than a few decades.
In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve tried to possess for themselves the right to judge for themselves right and wrong, good and evil. They reject the sovereignty of God for the sovereignty of self. In their rebellion, they lose the continual presence of God in their lives, are cut off from the source of real eternal life, and begin to die. In Genesis 6, the most violent and oppressive of mankind have set themselves up as gods, with the right to judge what is right and wrong for all of society. They use their attempts at sovereign rule to oppress and violate others. They reject the sovereignty and righteous equal judgment of God over all for an unequal and unjust system that would allow judgment and oppression of the weak by the strong. In their rebellion, God removes from mankind the possibility of long life, reducing the opportunity for the oppression of long lived and powerful men to continue. With the death of each king, comes the hope of the return to righteousness and justice for all people.
No comments:
Post a Comment