06.1 - Chapter 6:1-8

CHAPTER 6 B. The Commingling of the Two Races (Genesis 6:1-8)

We have just emphasized the fact that this is the closing portion of this particular history. Since this appears as plainly as possible, if the headings of the parts of the book are accepted on their face value as natural marks of division, and if the literary unity of the book is adhered to, we should do foolishly to lose sight of the fact. Here now is the natural sequence of thought: after the Cainites were observed to be going in one definite direction in their development, and the Sethites, tool were seen to be going in an entirely different direction, and these two streams of mankind Were strictly keeping apart because they were so utterly divergent in character, now (ch. 6) the two streams begin, to commingle, and as a result moral distinctions are obliterated and the Sethites, too, become so badly contaminated that the existing world order must be definitely terminated. With this natural sequence of thought growing out of the text and supported by a correct interpretation, criticism fails to see the obvious and introduces elements of thought entirely foreign to the connection and makes a mythical tale out of a simple and practical lesson, as we shall indicate presently. The best refutation of this erroneous view is first of all the unfolding of the natural meaning of the passage.

Genesis 6:1-2 - And it came to pass when mankind began to multiply upon the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took to themselves wives, whichever they liked best. In point of time, as will appear in connection with Genesis 6:3, we are shortly before the birth of Noah’s sons (Genesis 5:32). Men have become quite numerous upon the face of the earth. No man will ever determine how many they were. But where mankind comes to be of great numbers, somehow the places where they congregate together thickly become the scenes of the development of evil on a greater scale. So here. However, when it is remarked that "daughters were born unto them," that certainly cannot mean to describe something new: daughters had been born right along. However, this fact is mentioned as having a bearing upon the situation about to be described. Mark well that the bringing forth of daughters is being considered as taking place throughout all "mankind" (ha’adham), for the lahem, "to them," refers to the collective singular "mankind."

Now "the sons of God" are found looking indiscriminately at this group and observing only the fact that "fair" ones (tobhoth) were to be seen in the whole group. That is all that they observe. They ask or care nothing about anything else. Whether these fair ones are Sethite or Cainite means nothing to them. That is the sad moral indifference that the author emphasizes. But who are these "sons of God"? Without a shadow of doubt, the Sethites—the ones just described in chapter five as having in their midst men who walked with God, like Enoch (Genesis 5:22), men who looked to higher comfort in the midst of life’s miseries, like Lamech (Genesis 5:29), men who publicly worshipped God and confessed His name (Genesis 4:26). Such men merit to be called the "sons of God" (benê ‘elohîm), a title applied to true followers of God elsewhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. When the psalmist refers to such (Psalms 73:15) as "the generation of thy children," he uses the same word "sons," describing them as belonging to God. Deuteronomy 32:5 uses the same word "sons" ("children," A. V.) in reference to Israel. Hosea 1:10 is, if anything, a still stronger passage, saying specifically to Israel, "Ye are sons of the living God" (Heb. benê ‘el chay). Psalms 80:17 also belongs here. Criticism resorts to a technicality at this point. If God said to me: "Thou art my Son," criticism’s claim would be: "You have not been called ‘God’s son,’ but ‘my son,’ "—a mere technicality. So in the face of the passages we have just cited criticism claims the Scriptures do not use the expression "sons of God" for the godly, because "thy children" is used in three instances and in the fourth another name is used for God, ’el chay. We might word the case thus: strictly speaking, "sons of God" is a title applied to the godly; grammatically, the very expression "sons of God" does not happen to be used in reference to them in that very form.

Over against this usage that we have cited criticism arrays another, the substance of which is: The title "sons of God" is used in reference to the angels. This claim cannot be denied; see Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7 and Daniel 3:25; also benê ‘elîm, "sons of the Mighty," Psalms 29:1; Psalms 89:7. But this claim becomes erroneous when it is thus worded: The title "sons of God" is used only in reference to the angels. But of these two uses of the title, which shall we choose in this instance? We have had no mention made of’ angels thus far in Genesis. We have met with other sons of the true God, in fact, the whole preceding chapter, even 4:25-5:32, has been concerned with them. Who will, then, be referred to here? Answer, the Sethites, without a doubt. At this point criticism leads forth its strongest argument, saying that the contrast between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" demands that the former be divine and the latter human. We answer: Not at all; least of all in the face of the very natural approach we have just established, namely, that the sons of God of 4:25-5:32 are still under consideration. We have shown above how "daughters of men" refers indiscriminately to all "the daughters of mankind," which were unfortunately lumped together by the sons of God without regard to their classification, whether Sethite or Cainite. When God’s children, lose sight of such basic distinctions and look about only for the pretty faces and the shapely forms, then, surely, degeneracy has set in.

If the objection be raised, that in the preceding section the title "sons of God" had not been used in reference to the Sethites, we answer: It was reserved for use by Moses until this point to make the high standards that the Sethites should have observed in this matter all the more prominent. Or if it be objected: "sons of God" or "sons" is used of Israel as a people, not of individuals, this objection matters little. Here the Sethites are also being referred to as a separate group or people, and not as individuals. The reference to heathen legends about the promiscuous mingling of gods and men in mythological adventures, certainly can have no bearing upon our case. Such mythological tales about racy escapades on the part of the old gods would hardly be matter by which Biblical material is to be judged or with which it is to be compared. Critics, however, have waxed so bold in this instance that Procksch simply offers the superscription "The Marriages with Angels" (Die Engelehen), for this section. Besides, they are so sure that the section is of mythological, import that they claim the original account did not read "sons of God" but "gods," striking out "sons of." So Meek translates, "the gods noticed that the daughters of men were attractive; so they married those whom they liked best."

Such an approach introduces the mythological element as well as polytheism into the Scriptures and makes the Bible a record of strange and fantastic tales and contradicts the passage Matthew 22:30: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven." For the expression used here (Genesis 6:2), "they took to themselves wives" (wayyiqechû nashîm), is the standing expression for marital union. This verse does not refer to adulterous irregularities but to permanent union. Critics nowadays readily admit this, but usually wind up by wondering, not at their interpretation, which speaks of actual marital union with angels who took up a settled habitation on earth, but by wondering at the fact that J, as they say, should have written such strange tales, which they themselves do not believe possible. On this use of laqach cf. Genesis 24:4; Genesis 21:21; Genesis 11:29; Genesis 12:19 etc. The closing words, "whichever they liked best," help to clinch our interpretation, for they indicate that the controlling factor was the chance fancy of the moment, rather than sound judgment which weighs the moral character and the suitability of the one chosen. Literally translated this expression would be: "from all whom they chose." The min here used is the "min of explanation," which does not mean selecting some from "all" but carries the force of "whichsoever" (K. S. 83).

Those who wish to find a New Testament reference to these angel marriages point to 2 Peter 2:4 and to Jude 1:6, but neither of these passages refer to anything other than the original fall of the angels, as Keil has adequately shown. The marriages of angels have to be injected into these New Testament passages. Besides, then there would be a twofold fall of angels: the original and this, the second.

There is another harsh dissonance resulting from this strange critical construction as one tries to reason out the connection of Genesis 6:3 with what precedes. For Genesis 6:3, as we shall see at once, speaks of sharp restrictions laid upon man for his misdeeds. Here, then, would be the very queer sequence of thought: Genesis 6:2, angels sin; Genesis 6:3, men are punished. In vain the critics urge that, of course, the punishment of angels is presupposed but only that of man is mentioned. But if the angels really acted with the bold presumption the text indicates ("whichever they liked best they took"), then the women taken were practically innocent. Besides, what none of these commentators seems to have realized: if all mankind is punished as a result of what happened, these irregularities must have been quite common, well-nigh the rule, in fact. Is any critic ready to admit that? In a parallel case the evil angel has his punishment meted out first (Genesis 3:14-15); it is not simply taken for granted. Feeling all this, some critics charge the section with lacking logical progression of thought, failing to detect that the lack of logic lies in their erroneous interpretation. Procksch even charges J with creating intentional obscurities and blurring the connection of parts, an almost unbelievable course of procedure. But when critical hypotheses fail, it cannot be the critics who are wrong, but the original writers were guilty of absurdities.

Genesis 6:3 - And Yahweh said: My spirit shall not judge among mankind forever, because they also are flesh. Yet shall their days be one hundred and twenty years. This verse is a veritable crux interpretum. The critics magnify the difficulty to the point where they render the verse: "My spirit shall not (in?) man forever; he is flesh." Our rendering above, which is in reality the substance of Luther’s, except that Luther preferred a passive for the sake of better idiomatic German, we believe can be sustained by good arguments, makes good sense, and fits well into the context. In the first place, we have rendered the verb yadhôn "judge." In support of this rendering observe that Symmachus and Luther rendered it thus. Besides, the fact that dîn means "judge" cannot be questioned. But in how many instances verbs like dîn run parallel forms like dôn or dûn! K. W. admits this meaning. With the Hebrew meaning so readily available, it seems quite unnecessary to seek out Assyrian or Arabic parallels. Now the meaning that results is simple and most appropriate. A measure of the truth had been available for these antediluvians. This divinely revealed truth counted as God’s Word for them. God’s Word, according to the consistent and the uniform teaching of the Scriptures, is the means of grace. Through it God’s Holy Spirit (rûchî) operates, instructing or also reproving and judging men. This work of His had gone on until this point, aiming to correct and to check the strong propensity toward evil during the days of progressive degeneration. In spite of all the Spirit’s corrective efforts "mankind" (’adham) had persisted in abandoning the way of truth and life. Men had finally, as the one suggestive illustration showed, no longer cared about having their homes centres of godly instruction where divine truth prevailed, being taught by father and by mother, but instead chose any woman whatsoever, as the fancy of the moment moved them, to rear their offspring. At that point God determines that He will let His Spirit no longer do His work of reproving and restraining (yadhôn), because man has degenerated. Man is no longer simply sinful, as he has been right along since the Fall; the race has also as a whole practically sunk to the level of being "flesh" (basar), just plain, ordinary, weak and sinful stock, abandoned to a life of sin. Man has forfeited all hope of further efforts of God’s grace. So the expression: "because they also are flesh" fits into the picture. "Also" refers to something in addition to what had been in evidence till now, the ordinary sinful state prevalent since the Fall. This additional something is: they have degenerated to the point of being mere "flesh"—the word having the ethical connotation as in the New Testament. See the same use in Genesis 6:12-13 and Job 10:4. Of course, we are reading beshaggam (with short a) on good textual grounds (see Kittel), and as the Septuagint translators read: dia to einai autouv sacav. Unfortunately, they, like Luther, omitted the "also." We render beshaggam:" because that also." On first thought we seem to concur with B D B that the rendering of yadhon as "strive with" (A. V., A. R. V.). "is hardly justified." Yet, on second thought, is not the judging activity of the Spirit at the same time a striving with men to restrain them from their evil ways? The King James translators apparently were thinking of the same thing as Luther, and their rendering must be classed as quite satisfactory. We can well leave the welter of confusion and conjecture offered by criticism off at one side. It boots nothing of value.

Entirely in harmony with our rendering is the concluding statement of the verse, which marks the setting of the time limit of divine grace. For these words, "yet shall their, days be one hundred and twenty years," are to be taken in the sense of the traditional interpretation: one last period of grace is fixed by God for the repentance of mankind. The previous word indicated (Genesis 6:3a) that God might well have cut off all further opportunities of grace. This word (Genesis 6:3b) shows that grace always does more than could be expected. Before disposing of the guilty ones a time of grace of no less than one hundred and twenty years is allowed for their repentance. This, use of "days" (Genesis 6:3) is established by the use of the same word (Genesis 6:4) "those days." Consequently, the modern interpretation that takes this word to mean that God here decreed that in the future the span of man’s life was not to exceed one hundred twenty years is quite unfounded. This view is proved untenable by the fact that quite a few after the Flood lived in excess of this limit: Genesis 11:11, Genesis 11:13, Genesis 11:15, Genesis 11:17, Genesis 11:19, Genesis 11:21, Genesis 11:23, Genesis 11:25; Genesis 25:7; Genesis 35:28; Genesis 47:9. The evasions of the critics in meeting this argument need not be mentioned, being too palpable. On the use of the divine names notice the expression "sons of God" (’elohîm) Genesis 6:2, because theirs is a general relation to God, not a specifically theocratic one (Lange). On the other hand, Genesis 6:3 brings "Yahweh" because it offers a special display of God’s mercy in providing for years of grace.

We append, as worthy of note, the traditional Jewish interpretation which makes "the sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 to be persons of rank an impossible thought—and "the daughters of men" to be women of low rank—equally unlikely.

Genesis 6:4 - The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and also afterwards when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men and they bore unto them. Their were the heroes, which in olden days were renowned men.

Really quite a simple verse, unless one proceeds from the misinterpretation of the preceding verses and tries to link it up with the idea of angel marriages, a misconstruction prevalent since the days of the Septuagint translation. The basic rules of interpretation merely have to be observed: the presupposition, namely, that the Scriptures make good sense, develop their thoughts logically and naturally, and that simple grammatical rules still are in force. Says Skinner: "It was precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wishes to avoid." But why charge a Biblical writer with trying to write something not clear! Procksch assumes that the author J had quite a different original account, which he doctored up but left in a "wrecked state" (truemmerhafte Gestalt), which, of course, rather perplexes us. So men speak when they cannot find their meaning in the text.

Note now the simple fact that Genesis 6:4 does not follow Genesis 6:2. Note also that it does not attach itself by the expressive Hebrew "and" to what precedes. Genesis 6:4 begins without a conjunction. It does not try to show what manner of persons the children of the misalliance of Genesis 6:2 were. Anybody can figure that thing out for himself. If fathers do not care to choose God-fearing wives to rear their children, the result will be that the children are not taught the fear of God, and so the godly ways of the patriarchs are abandoned. That’s the result, nothing more. But Genesis 6:4 speaks of another class of ungodly men of olden times, setting the noun "nephilim" first by way of emphasis to make the new more prominent. But who were the Nephilim? Apparently, a type of men who were the climax of all such who inspired fear, as the only other passage where the term is used indicates, Numbers 13:33. For there the spies first call all Canaanites "men of stature," and then they mention that even "Nephilim," sons of Anak, were there. Consequently, we are driven to seek some meaning for the word which makes them awe-inspiring. Following the Hebrew root naphal is by far the simplest. One meaning of this verb is to "fall upon= attack" (B D B): see Jeremiah 48:32; Joshua 11:7; and without any preposition, Job 1:15. This verb could readily yield this noun in the sense of "attackers," "robbers," "bandits." So we have the thought: the descendants of the godly patriarchs abandoned their spiritual heritage (Genesis 6:1-2) so that God was moved to determine upon their destruction (Genesis 6:3); and there were also violent attackers and robbers abroad in those days (Genesis 6:4). There was a negative breakdown of some, positive aggressive wickedness of others. Such an interpretation makes good sense. Besides, the very clause that follows makes it clear that these Nephilim, whom Luther describes quite aptly as "tyrants," were on the earth already at the time when the Sethites commingled with the Cainites, but also that they continued after that sad confusion. The time clause, "when the sons of God went in," makes this sad confusion stand out as a major calamity, so important that one could actually reckon time from it. Then the text adds that these Nephilim were the "heroes" of antiquity, the men of renown (Heb. "men of the name"). They achieved a reputation the world over by their violence, but a reputation better deserving of the term notoriety. The world certainly did not in those days, even as it does not now, esteem godly men highly. Only the wicked were renowned or had a name (shem). The translation "giants" (A. V.) is most unfortunate. It originated with the Septuagint (gigantev). It does not follow from Numbers 13:33, even if there the "attackers" should also happen to have been giants. For "sons of Anak" means "sons of the long-necked one," and this may refer to gigantic stature. The unfortunate thing about this mistranslation is that it directs attention away from the moral issue (wicked bandits) to a physical one (tall stature). Besides, then, with a show of propriety modern interpreters combine the idea of giants with the misinterpretation about angel marriages and claim that the giants were the result of this union. But, in reality, nothing of the sort is found in the text. It is the result of a clever combination or of a mistranslation. Meek renders: "There were giants in the earth who were born to the gods whenever they had intercourse with the daughters of men."‘ This amounts to an unwarranted alteration of the text in the interest of a dogmatic preconception. Note well, too, that if there were a notice about giants inserted here it would not at all fit into the connection. Several critics are compelled to admit that they do not know why Genesis 6:4 does not follow Genesis 6:2. Certain older translators were nearer the truth than the Septuagint. Aquila, who like Symmachus wrote to correct the Greek version, rendered Nephilim epipiptontev =" they who fall upon." Symmachus, in a similar strain, biaioi =" powerful." The article before Nephilim is categorical (K. C.). Yabho’û, imperfect, expresses continuance: "they kept going in" (K. S. 157; G. K. 107 e). Bô’ is euphemistic. Hemah is a characteristic sudden change of subject (K. S. 399 B).

Genesis 6:5 - And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of mankind was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:5-8 represent the divine reaction to the wickedness of man. Therefore Genesis 6:5 looks back directly upon what preceded. Two significant instances have told the whole story: the Sethites had grown indifferent to their heritage; the Cainites had developed high-handed violence. When Yahweh regards this, he sees that it constitutes "great wickedness." Aside from these outward manifestations, He discerns the inner trend of men’s thoughts: they have put no restraint upon their natural inclinations, consequently their thoughts are only evil continually. It is true that the antediluvian generation is being described—God is not here discovering the innate human depravity—yet since the description shows man as simply having let himself go, this still must rank as a locus classicus for the natural depravity of the human heart, as Luther so staunchly contends. Yet the mode of expression is very suggestive: The heart is the place of the activity of man’s thoughts, "the thought-workshop" (Denkwerkstaette, K. C.). These thoughts produce yétser, "formings," "imaginings," "thought combinations," Dickten und Trachten, (Luther). But what a sweeping condemnation: "only evil continually." A striking alliteration and assonance makes the statement unique and most expressive in Hebrew: raq ra’. This natural trend would have been checked, and among the growth of weeds would have sprung up plants delightful to God and to man, if men had accepted the judging and correcting work of God’s Holy Spirit (Genesis 6:3). But that work was being consistently refused. On the heart as primarily the place of thought, see Psalms 33:11; Proverbs 19:21; 1 Chronicles 29:18.

Genesis 6:6-8 - And it repented Yahweh that He had made mankind upon the earth and it grieved Him at His heart. And Yahweh said: I will wipe out mankind which I have created from the face of the ground, from man to animals, to creepers, and to the birds of the heaven; for it repenteth me that I made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh. When God’s repentance is mentioned, it should be noted that we are using an inadequate human term for a perfect and entirely good divine action. Luther especially stresses that such expressions are found in the Scriptures so that we mortals with our feeble understanding might be helped to catch hold on divine truth according to the measure of our poor human ability. Procksch well defines this repentance on God’s part not as a change of purpose but of feeling out of which a new course of action develops. Scriptures frequently use the phrase "God-repented" (see Exodus 32:14; Jeremiah 18:7-8; Jeremiah 3:1, Jeremiah 26:13, Jeremiah 26:19; Jonah 3:10; 1 Samuel 15:11); but .sometimes in the same breath repentance in the sense of alteration in God is denied (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29). This repentance is the proper divine reaction to man’s sin. The parallel expression well defines it: "it grieved Him at His heart," Hebrew even stronger: "into His heart," ’el-libbo.

Genesis 6:7 - The gravity of the situation is made apparent by the severity of the divine resolution: "I will wipe out mankind." Sin has become so predominant and crass that the extremest measures alone can cope with it. There can have been no prospect of the reform of the corrupt mass of mankind. The ease with which God’s greatest works are done is revealed in the word "wipe out," which, by the way, contains a significant allusion to God’s mode of procedure in this instance. Strange to say, this word is ascribed to Yahweh, the God of fidelity and grace; for the destruction of mankind at this time was for the purpose of making possible the development of the seed of the woman destined to crush the serpent’s head. Yahweh’s right thus to destroy the major part of mankind is indicated by the adjective clause: "which I have created." The Giver of life is the Supreme Lord over life and death. The thoroughness with which He is about to do His work is indicated by the enumeration of all other forms of life that are to perish with man: "animals" (behemah, here including wild as well as domesticated animals, as in Genesis 6:20; Genesis 7:23; Genesis 8:17), "creepers" and "birds of the heavens." Fish naturally are not mentioned because of the mode of the destruction in this instance. The universality of the judgment thus serves to impress upon man how serious the issues really are. Beasts and other creatures, which were originally created for man’s sake, may well perish if a purpose salutary to man is served.

Genesis 6:8 - Evidence of the fact that it is Yahweh that does this work lies also in the preservation of Noah. In the midst of God’s judgments His "grace" (chen) also shines forth. Though the word is often used of the favour one man enjoys in the sight of another, such favour, when it flows forth from God, is that unmerited, rich favour we are wont to call "grace." In spite of A. R. V. the richer connotation of "grace" (A. V.) should be preserved. This closing statement prepares a transition for the following story of the Flood. An instance of the purely mechanical method of procedure of the critics is given in their labelling the two expressions "which I created" and "from man to—heavens" (Genesis 6:7) as glosses because they are claimed to be in the style of P. Such criticism of style, purely arbitrary as it is, makes it impossible for J to enumerate the classes that must perish. P carries a monopoly on enumerations as well as on these particular words.