Scriptural Exegesis

Text: Gen. 6:1-4

TOPIC: "WHO ARE THEY THAT MARRIED THE SONS OF MEN"

Introduction: It is my sincere intention to ascertain that careful, critical explanation and interpretation of the Scriptures be given. (known as “biblical exegesis.”)

I’m going to be providing you with credible information and teachings that can stimulate discovery, increase understanding and by extension encourage application. It will not be intending to incite arguing, but rather to facilitate useful discussions. Arguing aims at showing who is right, but discussions seeks to find out what is truth.

No doubt you know quite a bit about the Scriptures, but my desire is to show you a more excellent way. (cf. Acts 18:24-26, 1 Cor. 12:31).

Basic Rules For Interpretation Of A Text: * William Evans

There must be due recognition of the rules that determine the meaning of the text. The rules are as follows:

1. You should ascertain whether the language of the text is literal or figurative.

2. You must ascertain the meaning of words as used by each writer of the Scriptures.

3. You must consider the circumstances peculiar to the writer and those written to.

4. You must compare Scripture with Scripture (Rom. 12:6)

5. Must seek to know Manners and Customs of the people to whom the Bible was originally written.

This subject of the "sons of God," is one that have over the years aroused a lot of curiosity and diverse opinions that tantalizes even the greatest of Christian theologians. What is most difficult here, is the identification of the main participants in the short narrative. Namely, the "sons of God," the "daughters of men," and the "Nephilim" (or giants). Some scholars have provided three theories concerning these participants, that is up for our discussion tonight.

1) The cosmologically mixed races view (angels and humans).

2) The religiously mixed races view (godly line of Seth-ites and ungodly/worldly Cainites.

3) The sociologically mixed races view (despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners.

The view that is mostly held to, is the cosmologically mixed races, or the angel theory view. The book of Enoch, dating around 200 B.C,, claims that two hundred angels in heaven, led by Semayaz; beholding the beauty of the daughters of men, came down and took them wives. Josephus, a famous Jewish historian (born in 37 B.C.) held to this angel theory. Likewise the Greek translation of the Bible in the third century B.C. reads "angels of God" for the phrase "sons of God" in Gen. 6:2. However, in spite of the antiquity of the cosmologically mixed races view, there are some problems to consider. Nowhere else in the Scriptures are we told that angels married humans. What Jesus tells us - (Mk. 12:25).

Q. Why judgment on humans and on the earth, if the angels of heaven were the cause of the trouble.

Q. What do appealing to the N.T passages of (1Pet. 3:18-20, 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 6 -7 prove to support the angel theory.

Ans. These passages do not say anything about angelic marriages. To argue from the phrase "in a similar way" in Jude 7 that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is the same as the sin in (Gen.6:1-4) is too far fetch, for the sin of sodomy is not the same thing as marrying a wife from another part of the universe. In essence, "in a similar way" does not compare the sin of angels with the sin of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah; instead, it compares the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with the sins of "the cities about them" (that is, Admah and Zebolim; (Ref. Dt. 29:23 and Hos. 11:8).So then, the sins of the five cities of the plain (Jude 7) are held up as warnings of the judgment that could come to others. The fall of the angels that Jude mentions is that which took place when Lucifer fell. To connect this fall with the time of the flood because of proximity of the reference in Jude 4-7 would demand that we connect the flood with the overthrow of the five cities of the plain. The events listed in Jude are successive, not simultaneous:

1) the fall in eternity of Satan (Jude 4)

2) the preaching of Noah prior to the flood (Jude 5)

3) the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 6).

The religiously mixed races view: Identifies the "sons of God" as the godly line of Seth. Given the sin they committed, they are generally looked on as the apostate line of Seth. "The daughters of men" are equated with the ungodly line of Cain. The sin condemned, then, would be the sin of being "unequally yoked" -that is, the marriage of believers to unbelievers. This view also do an injustice to the sacred text. In (Gen. 6:1) "men" is used to indicate humanity genetically, while (Gen. 6:2) "men" is understood to refer to the line of Cain specifically. To suggest an abrupt change in meaning without any indication in the text is unwarranted and very dangerous. What is even more alarming, is the problem of the offspring.

The sociologically mixed view: is considered to be more applicable to the subject matter. "sons of God" is an early expression with reference to kings, aristocrats and nobles in the Near Eastern Setting. These men were power-hungry and driven to become "men of renown" (vs. 4). In their lust for recognition and status/position, they exercised control over the territory they governed as if they were accountable to no one but themselves. (Gen. 6:5-6, cf. Gen. 10:8-12). For evidence to this view, there are a few areas to be considered.

1) The ancient Aramaic Targums render "sons of God" as "sons of the noble" (Targums of Onkelos), and the Greek translation of Symmachus reads "sons of the kings or lords."

2) The word gods (Hebrew elohim) is used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (ref. Ex. 21:6, 22:8, Ps. 82:1,6).

3) Structurally, the account of the Cainite Lamech (Gen. 4:19-24) and that of the "sons of God" in Gen. 6:1-4 are very much alike. In each there's the taking of wives, the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits. The former passage ends with a boast of judgment by Lamech, and the other ends with God's decree of judgment. Lamech practiced bigamy (Gen. 4:19) and he enforced his policies by using tyranny. There's a parallel picture here, which depict states of tyranny, corruption and polygamy.

4) Near Eastern discoveries validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods' and goddesses' names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia- hence the title "sons of God."

5) A final line of evidence that can be given, concerns the nephilim/gibborim of Gen. 6:4. The word nephilim is seen twice, here and in (Num. 13:33), where it refers to the Anakim, who were people of great stature. The root meaning of the word nephilim is "to fall." However in gen. 6:4 the nephilim are associated with the term gibborim, which comes from gobbor, meaning "a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.

1. “Jehovah” (YHWH – Strong’s number H3068): It is derived from the Hebrew word “hayah,” meaning “to exist” or “to be.”
   
   This name signifies God’s eternal and self-existent nature. It’s usually translated as “I AM,” indicating first of all that God exists and, secondly, that He is about to reveal some aspect of Who He is.

2. “Gibbor” (Strong’s number H1368): This Hebrew word implies strength, mightiness, and bravery. It represents a warrior, hero, or champion who possesses superior power and authority.
   
   גִּבּוֹר gibbôwr, ghib-bore’; or גִּבֹּר gibbôr; (shortened) intensive from the same as H1397; powerful; by implication, warrior, tyrant:—champion, chief, × excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

So, when we combine the two words, we can see that God introduces Himself to us as a mighty warrior, a champion, and a hero with unmatched power and strength. This is when we see in translations: Mighty God and I AM Mighty. Nimrod in (Gen. 10:8) was such a gibbor. He was also a king in the land of Shinar. So then, the meaning of nephilim/gibbor is "giants," but something more like "princes" "aristocrats" or "great men."

Gen. 6:1-4, therefore, is best understood as depicting ambitious, despotic and autocratic rulers seizing both women and power in an attempt to gain all the authority and notoriety they could from those within their reach.