Genesis 6:1-4. What does-it mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarek_Chidiac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tarek_Chidiac

Guest
Can anybody explain to me this paragraph from Genesis 6:1-4.

6 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 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. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
**

Who are the sons of god here?
Why,after they took daughters of men, the Lord siad that His spirit shall stay in man only for 120 years?
Befor that was His spirit for ever?
is-it in relation with an olg Greek myth?
What spiritual lesson can we take from?
Thank you …
 
Well, the typical interpretation of the Nephilim were that they were giants, born of fallen angels and human women.

However, I think we can view it like this. The Sons of God were probably not fall angels at all, but probably warlords and powerful men. In fact, I am almost incline to say that this is kind of a mythological reference to the Sumerian migration to Mesopotamia from the northern mountains. They came possessing powerful tools and weapons for the age, highly advanced, that the primitive Semitic cultures around Mesopotamia probably viewed them as coming down from heaven (think when the spies are sent into Canaan after the Exodus, they are described as giants because of the size of their cities and walls). And like all future peoples they probably would trade with local semitic pastorals and they see their daughters and be like how much you want for her and so on, or it could be more forceful too like raids and snatching young women.

Now God’s reference to not abiding in spirit in them and reducing their age is a two fold thing. One God is revoking his blessing of these people, because they are either impure or immoral. The reduction of age to 120. Now few people live to 120, but in the Bible it is not meant to be taken literally. In the old days, most cultures had an ideal age, for the ancient Hebrews it was 120 (Moses dies at 120), probably because it symbolizes three generations (assuming a typical generation is 40 years), as three in most numerology is important. Now in the story of Joseph, he dies at 110, 110 is the ancient Egyptian ideal age, did the Egyptians really live that long, probably not, you may get a couple of centarians once in awhile, but not 110.

Now I am not a Biblical scholar, but I am quite read up on this stuff though, and I think there is probably some truth to my theory, it may not be entire truth, since I am not fluent in ancient Hebrew or ancient near east customs.

Generally, it is probably wise to consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as mythological, they are important yes, they contain both some historical truth and definite theological truths yes.
 
Can anybody explain to me this paragraph from Genesis 6:1-4.

6 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose.
3 Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 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. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
**

Who are the sons of god here?
Why,after they took daughters of men, the Lord siad that His spirit shall stay in man only for 120 years?
Befor that was His spirit for ever?
is-it in relation with an olg Greek myth?
What spiritual lesson can we take from?
Thank you …
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 1. Daughters. These had borne equal proportion with the males from the beginning; but here they are particularized, because they were the chief instruments in corrupting the descendants of Seth. (Haydock) — Even the sons of these libidinous people were so effeminate, as to deserve to be called women. (Menochius)

Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner) — See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet) — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. (Worthington) (St. Augustine)

Ver. 3. His days shall be, &c. The meaning is, that man’s days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge. (Challoner) — He spoke therefore to Noe in his 480th year. (St. Augustine) — Those who suppose, that he foretold this event 20 years later, think with St. Jerome, that God retrenched 20 years from the time first assigned for penance. The Spirit of the sovereign Judge was fired with contending; or, as others translate it, with remaining quiet as in a scabbard, and bearing with the repeated crimes of men. He resolved to punish them severely in this world, that he might shew mercy to some of them hereafter. (St. Jerome, 9. Heb.) (Calmet) — If we suppose, that God here threatens to reduce the space of man’s life to 120 years, we must say, at least, that he did it by degrees; for many lived several hundred years, even after the deluge. In the days of Moses, indeed, few exceeded that term. But we think the other interpretation is more literal, and that God bore with mankind the full time which he promised. (Worthington)

Ver. 4. Giants. It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature, in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of, are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust. (Challoner) — Yet we need not imagine, that they were such as the poets describe, tearing up mountains, and hurling them against heaven. Being offspring of men, who had lived hitherto with great temperance, but now gave full scope to their passions, and the love of the fair daughters whom they chose, we need not wonder that they should be amazingly strong and violent. Nephilim, rushing on, as Ag. translates. That there have been giants of an unusual size, all historians testify. Og, Goliah, &c. are mentioned in Scripture, and the sons of Enac are represented as much above the common size, as the Hebrews were greater than grasshoppers, Numbers xiii. 34. If we should suppose they were four or five times our size, would that be more wonderful that they should live nine or ten times as long as we do? See St. Augustine, City of God xv. 9, 23; Calmet’s Dissert. &c. Delrio affirms, that in 1572 he saw at Rouen, a native of Piedmont, above nine feet high. (Haydock) — Of old. The corruption of morals had commenced many ages ago, and some of the sons of Seth had given way to their lusts; so that we are not to suppose, that these giants were all born within a hundred years of the flood, as some might suppose from their being mentioned here, after specifying the age of Noe, chap. v. 31. (Haydock)
 
According to the Rabbi Hertz, there are 3 main schools of thought regarding Chapter 6 of Genesis. First, sons of God is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase beney Elohim. Among ancient peoples, there was a belief that there once existed a race of men of gigantic strength and stature, who were the offspring of human mothers, and celestial fathers, and supposedly there is an echo of that legend in this particular Biblical passage.

However, the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew thought. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators.

Others render beney Elohim as “sons of the great”. In poetic Hebrew, the word elohim often means “mighty”. This verse would thus state that the sons of the nobles took them wives of the daughters of hte people who were powerless to resist. These marriages were the result of mere unbridled passion, and are an indication of the license and oppression in that time.

It is also quite in accord with Bibliclal usage that those who adhered to the true worship of God - the sons of Seth - are the ones being referred to as the “sons of God”, and that in contrast to these, the daughters of hte line of Cain should be spoken of as ‘daughters of men’.

This would mean that verses 1-4 are pointing out the calamitous consequences to maknind when the pious sons of Seth merged with those who had developed a Godless civilization, and who, with all their progress in arts and inventions, had ended in depravity and despair. Through intermarriage, the sons of Seth sink to the level of the ungodly race; and likewise deserve the doom that, with the exception of one family, was to overtake mankind.

These verses are thus the first warning in the Torah against intermarriage with idolaters.

*The information above is taken from the Hertz Chumash, Second Edition, edited by Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H., Late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire.

In H.H. Halley’s famous Bible Handbook, Mr. Halley notes that the “sons of God” are thought to have been either fallen angles, to which there may be reference in II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, or leaders in Sethite families who intermarried with godless descendants of Cain. These abnormal marriages, whatever they were, filled the earth with corruption and vice.

**** Information taken from Halley’s Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, New Revised Edition.***
 
The sons of God were descendants of Seth and the sons of men were from Cain’s line.
 
The sons of God were descendants of Seth and the sons of men were from Cain’s line.
Nowhere in Genesis 6:1-4 does it speak of the “sons of men”. It only speaks of the “daughters of men.”
 
As St. Thomas Aquinas says, in quoting Augustine

As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv):
“Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge.” Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
 
Thanks to all for posting. It was helpfull.
Nevertheless, I need to share witn you my thoughts about what you have posted and I have read among references you have suggested. Here is the first one:
I believe that fallen angels cannot be the “Sons of god” mentionned in Genesis 6:1-4. Angels are spiritual creatures, (different nature than men) created by God Himself for His own purpose which we are not capable to understand completely, and only we may think that it is, in part of it, in relation with the Divine salvation project to save us. Added to which, Jesus said: “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the ANGELS in heaven” ( Matthew 22: 30) Angels so, in particular,the fallen ones, have not our nature and they cannot marry with men’s daughters.
So it is clear that “Sons of God” point to men walking on God’s way, who are called righteous, the descendants of Seth.

Sincerly Tarek.
 
Can anybody explain to me this paragraph from Genesis 6:1-4.

6 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them,**
***2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. ***
3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years."
4 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. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.


Who are the sons of god here?

**“Angelic” beings - as elsewhere in the OT; that is, superhuman beings who are members of the heavenly “court”; as in Job 1 & 38.7, as well in a variant of Deuteronomy 32.8 recorded in the Septuagint. **​

Why,after they took daughters of men, the Lord siad that His spirit shall stay in man only for 120 years?
Befor that was His spirit for ever?
is-it in relation with an olg Greek myth?

Close 🙂 - it’s a fairly common motif, which is found within Israel (as here) as well as outside. In this passage, it’s an example of crossing

boundaries, of “trans-gressing”:
  • in Gen. 3, the snake does so - going from being snake to having human speech
  • the first humans do so by seeking forbidden knowledge
  • in Gen.6, the “sons of Elohim” go from being heavenly, to desiring women
  • in the Flood generally, the waters cross their God-appointed boundaries to drown allliving things
  • **in 11, the builders of the tower seek to cross from earth to heaven. **
    The Biblical authors are very creative - they take familiar ideas common to their own & other cultures, & give them a depth & wealth of meaning they don’t have elsewhere. This is why it is so helpful to be aware of those other cultures: for by comparing the Israelite use of the motif with the use of it elsewhere we can learn a lot about how grace works in purifying these shared things.
What spiritual lesson can we take from?
Thank you …
 

**“Angelic” beings - as elsewhere in the OT; that is, superhuman beings who are members of the heavenly “court”; as in Job 1 & 38.7, as well in a variant of Deuteronomy 32.8 recorded in the Septuagint. **​

Close 🙂 - it’s a fairly common motif, which is found within Israel (as here) as well as outside. In this passage, it’s an example of crossing

boundaries, of “trans-gressing”:
  • in Gen. 3, the snake does so - going from being snake to having human speech
  • the first humans do so by seeking forbidden knowledge
  • in Gen.6, the “sons of Elohim” go from being heavenly, to desiring women
  • in the Flood generally, the waters cross their God-appointed boundaries to drown allliving things
  • **in 11, the builders of the tower seek to cross from earth to heaven. **
    The Biblical authors are very creative - they take familiar ideas common to their own & other cultures, & give them a depth & wealth of meaning they don’t have elsewhere. This is why it is so helpful to be aware of those other cultures: for by comparing the Israelite use of the motif with the use of it elsewhere we can learn a lot about how grace works in purifying these shared things.
First, thank you for posting.
Second,I think Angels are Angels, Human beings are Human beings and there is no superhuman beings (in between).
Third, did’nt you agree that those examples of crossing-boundaries and trans-gressing (as you have called) are’nt but Symbols that we have to discover, clarify and understand to learn and know the God purpose? If so, there is, surely, a spiritual lesson we have to gain.
Finaly, I beg your pardon, I do’nt understand your last words:" It’s hard to be religious when some people need to be struck by lightning". Mau you repost for more explanation.
Thank you
 
Tarek,
You should check out this book by Elaine Pagels, ‘Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.’ It is a good analysis of the interpretation of first several chapters of Genesis by early Christian writers. She maps outs how various early fathers of the church used the first chapters of Gen to support various attitudes such as the superiority of virginity over the married state and, most surprising to me, the innate liberty of all people regardless of race, sex, slave or free. Also presented is a good overview of the Gnostic interest and use of these chapters and how this Gnostic view differed from the ‘orthodox’ interpretation. You can probably get this book for about ten dollars. It’s not a huge tome, only about 150 pages paperback.

Interesting and specific to your question are the writings of the philosopher Justin regarding the verses Gen:6 1-4. Justin converted to Christianity primarily due to having witnessed Christians being martyred at the hands of the Romans. He would end his life as such a martyr himself. He was a couple of generations ahead of Augustine, so he obviously did not know of his reasoning. To the point, Justin did not hold the ‘line of Seth and line of Cain’ view. He took Gen 6:1-4 quite literally, i.e. gods had relations with humans which produced offspring. Most interesting is he saw this as relating to the Roman Emperors who claimed such for themselves – to be sons of gods, or gods themselves – and Justin used these passages to help justify his condemnation of Roman pantheism.

With Justin’s application in mind, maybe verses 1-4 mean both that these men were actual ‘sons of god’ and that they were of the line of Cain. How both? Perhaps, as Justin was seeing in the rulers of his day, the rulers of the line of Cain considered themselves to be gods or sons of gods – divinely ordained – as the Roman Emperors. This idea would have the rulers of the line of Cain being ‘self-proclaimed’ sons of god. This however would invert the interpretation of Augustine and later Aquinas, for now the ‘sons of god’ are the arrogant Cainites and the daughters of men are the Sethites. I find this interesting. Do know the musings of this paragraph are mine and not the conclusions of Pagels. She just presents history.

I haven’t read any other histories of Pagels. I seem to recall she was considered a feminist historian (whatever that means) by Time magazine when this book was the cover story. I am rather conservative myself and did not get a sense of her trying to push an agenda or preferred outlook on the reader (me). She presents some interesting facts and lets you decide - at least that’s how I read it.

Again, it is a history book. There is nothing apologetic or devotional here. The nice thing is she has searched a broad selection of early Christian writings that pertain specifically to the early chapters of Gen. and presented them in a chronological and historical context. That’s a lot of work already done and neatly presented.

I think you will appreciate her research.

Hope this helps.

PeterK
 
Tarek,
You should check out this book by Elaine Pagels, ‘Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.’ It is a good analysis of the interpretation of first several chapters of Genesis by early Christian writers. She maps outs how various early fathers of the church used the first chapters of Gen to support various attitudes such as the superiority of virginity over the married state and, most surprising to me, the innate liberty of all people regardless of race, sex, slave or free. Also presented is a good overview of the Gnostic interest and use of these chapters and how this Gnostic view differed from the ‘orthodox’ interpretation. You can probably get this book for about ten dollars. It’s not a huge tome, only about 150 pages paperback.

Interesting and specific to your question are the writings of the philosopher Justin regarding the verses Gen:6 1-4. Justin converted to Christianity primarily due to having witnessed Christians being martyred at the hands of the Romans. He would end his life as such a martyr himself. He was a couple of generations ahead of Augustine, so he obviously did not know of his reasoning. To the point, Justin did not hold the ‘line of Seth and line of Cain’ view. He took Gen 6:1-4 quite literally, i.e. gods had relations with humans which produced offspring. Most interesting is he saw this as relating to the Roman Emperors who claimed such for themselves – to be sons of gods, or gods themselves – and Justin used these passages to help justify his condemnation of Roman pantheism.

With Justin’s application in mind, maybe verses 1-4 mean both that these men were actual ‘sons of god’ and that they were of the line of Cain. How both? Perhaps, as Justin was seeing in the rulers of his day, the rulers of the line of Cain considered themselves to be gods or sons of gods – divinely ordained – as the Roman Emperors. This idea would have the rulers of the line of Cain being ‘self-proclaimed’ sons of god. This however would invert the interpretation of Augustine and later Aquinas, for now the ‘sons of god’ are the arrogant Cainites and the daughters of men are the Sethites. I find this interesting. Do know the musings of this paragraph are mine and not the conclusions of Pagels. She just presents history.

I haven’t read any other histories of Pagels. I seem to recall she was considered a feminist historian (whatever that means) by Time magazine when this book was the cover story. I am rather conservative myself and did not get a sense of her trying to push an agenda or preferred outlook on the reader (me). She presents some interesting facts and lets you decide - at least that’s how I read it.

Again, it is a history book. There is nothing apologetic or devotional here. The nice thing is she has searched a broad selection of early Christian writings that pertain specifically to the early chapters of Gen. and presented them in a chronological and historical context. That’s a lot of work already done and neatly presented.

I think you will appreciate her research.

Hope this helps.

PeterK
I wouldn’t trust anything by Elaine Pagels.

Questions arise about scholars who collaborated in National Geographic’s Gospel of Judas presentation

…Elaine Pagels is a feminist who has written several books against the Catholic Church, such as “The Origin of Satan,” written with the initial help of her colleagues at the Hebrew University of Tel Aviv. With the assistance of the openly pro-abortion MacArthur Foundation, she researched and wrote “Adam, Eve and the Serpent,” in which she accused Christianity of offering a distorted image of women.
 
Buffalo,
Thanks for the CNA reference. I am still reading “Adam, Eve and the Serpent". I have not come to the ‘distorted view of women’ part yet. It would be interesting to know what part of the book CNA is referring to. So far I’ll stand by what I said early, I have not detected a strong anti-Christian bias or revisionist tendency. Again, I found it relevant to Tarek’s question about Gen 6:1-4. Thought he might like to hear about it. Pagel’s personal views aside, so far it’s a good read.

PeterK
 
The culture that formed out of Cain’s decendants is matriarchal therefore refered to by the author as ‘daughters of’.

Cain found his purpose in his mother. " Eve said at Cain’s birth, " I have got me a man". Seeing her womb as the font of the power of fertility and fertility as the generative force of God on earth.

Cain’s decendants would act out of this view of mankind’s relationship to creation and God eventually forming the culture refered to as ‘daughters of men’.
 
Tarek,
You should check out this book by Elaine Pagels, ‘Adam, Eve, and the Serpent.’ It is a good analysis of the interpretation of first several chapters of Genesis by early Christian writers. She maps outs how various early fathers of the church used the first chapters of Gen to support various attitudes such as the superiority of virginity over the married state and, most surprising to me, the innate liberty of all people regardless of race, sex, slave or free. Also presented is a good overview of the Gnostic interest and use of these chapters and how this Gnostic view differed from the ‘orthodox’ interpretation. You can probably get this book for about ten dollars. It’s not a huge tome, only about 150 pages paperback.

Interesting and specific to your question are the writings of the philosopher Justin regarding the verses Gen:6 1-4. Justin converted to Christianity primarily due to having witnessed Christians being martyred at the hands of the Romans. He would end his life as such a martyr himself. He was a couple of generations ahead of Augustine, so he obviously did not know of his reasoning. To the point, Justin did not hold the ‘line of Seth and line of Cain’ view. He took Gen 6:1-4 quite literally, i.e. gods had relations with humans which produced offspring. Most interesting is he saw this as relating to the Roman Emperors who claimed such for themselves – to be sons of gods, or gods themselves – and Justin used these passages to help justify his condemnation of Roman pantheism.

With Justin’s application in mind, maybe verses 1-4 mean both that these men were actual ‘sons of god’ and that they were of the line of Cain. How both? Perhaps, as Justin was seeing in the rulers of his day, the rulers of the line of Cain considered themselves to be gods or sons of gods – divinely ordained – as the Roman Emperors. This idea would have the rulers of the line of Cain being ‘self-proclaimed’ sons of god. This however would invert the interpretation of Augustine and later Aquinas, for now the ‘sons of god’ are the arrogant Cainites and the daughters of men are the Sethites. I find this interesting. Do know the musings of this paragraph are mine and not the conclusions of Pagels. She just presents history.

I haven’t read any other histories of Pagels. I seem to recall she was considered a feminist historian (whatever that means) by Time magazine when this book was the cover story. I am rather conservative myself and did not get a sense of her trying to push an agenda or preferred outlook on the reader (me). She presents some interesting facts and lets you decide - at least that’s how I read it.

Again, it is a history book. There is nothing apologetic or devotional here. The nice thing is she has searched a broad selection of early Christian writings that pertain specifically to the early chapters of Gen. and presented them in a chronological and historical context. That’s a lot of work already done and neatly presented.

I think you will appreciate her research.

Hope this helps.

PeterK
Thank you PeterK for your generous posting. I, surely, will get the Elaine Pagels book, and i’ll read it carefully just for knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top