Vs.1 – ―And it was, that when people began to increase on the earth and daughters were
being born to them‖.
This verse is a reference to the time when the human population on earth experienced some rapid growth, children increased in number, and people rejoiced in their pleasurable acts. The word ם ָדאָ stands for humanity in general, as an inclusive term for equality. The problem surfaced when ―men‖ began to multiply and the race of םי ִרֹבִג was produced through the
128
wrong means of unusual union between the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב and the ―daughters of men‖. It was an unlimited development that had to be controlled by divine means (Driver 1904:82).
The opening statement in Vs.1 is an indication that the multiplication of humans in Genesis 6 is a continuation of the story of creation that started at the beginning of Genesis. Cassuto (1944:291) points out that the word ם ָדאָ literally means ―man‖ and could be applied as a common noun in a collective sense. Hence, at the beginning of the first paragraph, the pronoun appears to be in a singular and then in plural, thereby establishing a connection. Stigers confirms that ָמ ָד ֲאָהה in vs.1 is a collective term for ―men‖ or for humanity in general. The word was used later to refer to women as daughters of human beings, signifying women in general. The identity of two groups, םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב and angels, is due to the use of the word in Job 1:6 and 38:7 (Stigers 1976:97). It has been clarified that Vs.1 is an indicative statement about the extent of human growth, and the threats to the future development of the community was being projected. Westermann (1984:370) describes an action that started in an event here that is constantly going on; as the expansion of humans that is being discussed.
Further, the clause describes an on-going situation, and the multiplication of human beings is what forms the background to the new action (Wenham 1987:138). On the other hand, Hamilton (1990:261) claims that vs.1 is a link to the genealogy of Adam, and it serves as an introductory sentence to the division as well as a summary of the story of the rapid increase of Adam‘s progeny and the flood. The story begins with a reference to an event in the past which became shameful to the community. It is easy to hide in the crowd and commit a crime in today‘s world where there are many people, but in a community with fewer people, one would easily be found out and caught. The statement at the beginning of the verse indicates a starting point of evil or unwanted behaviours from the people. It seems the author was concerned about the contradictory involvement of the creatures on earth that was why he took time to explain the origin or cause of the flood on earth, because that things like that did not just happen ordinarily.
Vs.2 – The sons of God (םיִהלֱֹאָה־י ) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they ֵ נ ְב took for themselves wives from any of those they chose.
129
The major problem in Vs.2 was where the unnatural relationship took place between the ־יֵנְב םיִהלֱֹאָה and the daughters of humankind. When the םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב ―saw‖ that the women were beautiful, they ―took‖ or ―inter-married‖ them, as they ―wanted‖, ―desired‖, ―lusted or chose‖. Calvin‘s (1847:239-240) did not deem it fit to condemn the םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב for appreciating the women‘s beauty because it is required to appreciate a woman before choosing a partner; the problem was the lust that motivated their relationship. Marriage is a sacred institution established for companionship not for lustful intentions and the satisfaction of pleasurable desires. Driver (1904:83) seems to imply that they dealt with the women as they pleased. The םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב saw the women and appreciated them, as beautifully and wonderfully made in the image of God. They married them by grabbing them randomly instead of through dialogical arrangement and agreement between two parties. The personalities of the women and the acceptable process of forging a union were not respected or valued according to the culture of that setting.
Skinner (1910:141-142) believes that the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב were probably members of the divine order, called םיִהלֹ ֱא. These supernatural beings became attracted to the beauty of the daughters of mortal men and succumbed to a permanent marriage contract. The angels were not called םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב because they had received the nature of God in them though they were created, but they failed to keep the level of holiness that was expected of them as members of the heavenly court of God. They were only interested in the instant satisfaction of their sexual desires. The name םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב also appears to be a reference to humans – the ―Sethites‖.
For Cassuto (1944:291-295), in ancient and modern exposition, the expression םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב is used for a distinct group of human beings and used in contradiction to the daughters of men, who were also mere human species as a whole or entities outside the sphere of humankind. The term occurs in reference to the identity of ―angels‖ malachum which is also the oldest interpretation in the history of this exegesis. The women were beautiful or ―good in appearance‖ and the םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב married any of them whom they chose. The mem refers to ―all‖ or anyone they selected. The Torah refers to the union as opposite of the order set by the Lord.
If they were angels as stated in the Septuagint, they would have been called malecha elohim, meaning messengers of God, but the use of the term ―holy ones‖ (םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב or children of
130
God) was probably for the Sethites, who were created in the image and likeness of God, and possessed some wisdom and nature of םיִהלֹ ֱא.
The main concern here is the picture of the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב in Vs.2, where the םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב ―saw‖ the daughters of men and rushed to pick them as wives. In this verse is found the collective decision of the so-called םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב who misbehaved. On the question of their identity whether as ―angels‖, ―judges‖, ―warriors‖, ―םי ִרֹבִג‖, ―heroes‖ or ―divine beings‖, the evil they committed was what made them into negative limelight. It helped to establish the fact that an unwanted relationship took place between the daughters of Cain and the sons of Seth.
Stigers (1976:97) notes that ָמ ָד ֲאָהה is a collective term for ―men in general‖ and ―the daughters of men‖ stand for ―women in general‖. Just as in every age, they looked and beheld fair women and freely they took them as wives for themselves; wives of unbelievers. It seems to imply that they were not humans but angel-like in nature. For Westermann (1984:370- 372), beauty does not exist abstractly unless seen or discovered. . He accepts the opinion that designates spiritual beings or angels as members of the divine order. Following Gunkel, he agrees that the ―beings‖ belonged to the category of elohim and not to a religion. His conclusion was not clear although he classifies the text as mythical in purpose. The story tells how the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב did something that is typical of humankind.
Wenham offers three interpretations of the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב. They could be non-human, godlike beings such as angels, demons or spirits, superior men such as kings or rulers, or godly men, probably the descendants of Seth who exhibited contrary traits to the godless descendants of Cain. Modern scholars advance the view that they were heavenly, godlike creatures from Psalm 29:1 and Job 1:6, but that the creatures in the Genesis 6:1-4 narrative are hard to describe (Wenham 1987:139-141). Sarna (1989:45) seems to support the position that they are angel-like beings. He claims that they resembled a celestial entourage based on some biblical verses.
Like Wenham and Westermann, Hamilton (1990:262-265) also states that it is not really clear who the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב were, but that they could be angels, dynastic rulers or godly Sethites. He notes that in other places in the Old Testament, the term םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב was used for heavenly beings (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Psalm 29:1, 82:6,89:7 and Daniel 3:25), and it is most likely that angels constitute the heavenly council or court. The םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב is an enigmatic phrase used to
131
portray godliness in the context. It was the Sethites who lived godly lives, and were called םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב, being characters which had the tendency to engage in human, pleasurable and shameful sexual relationships.
Vs.3 – ―And YHWH (הָוהְי not Elohim) said, ‗My spirit shall not contend with man forever in
the erring, for he is flesh and his days shall be hundred and twenty years‘‖.
In vs.3, Calvin noted that the degree of wickedness ought not to be found in the land; therefore, he introduced God as the speaker, and pronounced that the intolerable depravity of the world was incurably beyond any remedy. He explains that God was no longer willing to allow his spirit to be held captive by humanity, as God‘s spirit was the Judge within humankind (Calvin 1847:241). Driver (1904:83) is of the opinion that ―my spirit‖ represents an ethical principle on God‘s part and the clause, ―will not contend with man forever,‖ meant human days as ―flesh‖ in the time before the judgment would be limited to one hundred and twenty years. Skinner (1904:141) agrees that vs.3 refers to an impending judgment on the human race which was later fulfilled in the flood as an expiry of the allotted terms. It was due to what has happened in the preceding verse that God decided to punish humanity. He limited the time-span for his spirit with humans and reduced their number of days on the earth to one hundred and twenty years. People would be dying at a tender age unlike in the ancient times. It is possible that the level of happiness was also reduced knowing that one would return to God between the ages of seventy and hundred.
Cassuto (1944:295-297) explains that the statement, ―the Lord said‖, is a decision that shows when he resolved that, ―my spirit will not contend with man forever‖, the verb ―abide‖ (yardon) means a couch or bed as dananu, dinnu or madnanu in Akkadian. It carries the sense of existing or remaining perpetually in a given place. The spirit of life which God breathed into humans would no longer abide forever, and the children or the offspring of the evil union would not be immortal like their fathers, but they would die when the time stated arrived. Since humankind is ―flesh‖ (bosaggam) or humans are creatures that have the tendency to err even though they transcend other creatures on earth, they remain in the ―flesh‖ like the other creatures. This negotiation shows that the creator loved the creatures even in their wrongdoing; what God hates is the bad behaviour not the individual in question.
132
Another interpretation by Stigers (1976:98) is that yadon is ―to strive‖. It means God will not forever bear the consequences of human sin and the use of bosaggam (―in going astray‖, ―in as much as‖ or ―for‖) indicates that humankind as a finite being. Again, we do not understand it but seems to assert that God remains the provider and sustainer of humans on earth (Brueggemann 1982:72-73).
Vs.3 is a judgment pronounced on humankind. Wenham points out that almost every word in
this verse is controversial. However, it seems that the divine-human relationship or intercourse was compared to eating the tree of life in the garden in Genesis 3:22. ―My spirit‖ represents the breath of life or the spirit of life; therefore, the withdrawal of the spirit would be sudden and all human beings would die some day. The ―one hundred and twenty years‖ specified the new time limit for humans on earth. Humans and animals are described as flesh but not God; therefore, the flesh perishes without the continual dwelling of the spirit and it returns to dust. Flesh also indicates moral weakness and propensity to sin (Wenham 1987:141-142; see also Westermann 1984:373-374)).
Although before this event and even after the pronouncement people lived longer, the life force from God determined the life and death of any individual. The verdict is seen in the phrase, ―will not abide in man forever‖ due to the disorder in God‘s creation (Sarna 1989:46). In addition, it was God‘s decision to withdraw his spirit (Hamilton 1990:267). If God wants to take a decision to do something to/for his creatures either in the form of a blessing or calamity, he does what he deems right and does not need human view.
Vs.4 – ―They were Nephilim on earth in those days and even afterwards when came in the
םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב to the daughters of men and bore for them children. They were heroes of old who existed from ancient times and warriors of renown‖.
Calvin explains that the reference to the םי ִרֹבִג on earth in vs. 4 indicated the presence of some beings that were stronger than the rest of the creatures who relied on them for protection. The use of לִפְמ was probably due to the fall of those heroes who were robust in stature and fell into sin or fell from their position of responsibility in heaven where they stood. The use of (vegam) is to emphasis the size of their physical structure, as offspring of the promiscuity relationship between the םיִהלֹ ֱאָה־יֵנְב and human daughters. The םי ִרֹבִג also had a peculiar origin; but those born from the unnatural relationship became examples to others just as the
133
mighty men of old or of antiquity olam. They were men of renown according to Moses, and they ―boasted as honourable robbers‖ because they were greater than the common humanity. Their position bestowed on them some glory and honour as celebrities and titled men who were ―heroes‖. They exercised dominion, power, and fame and might in oppressing other creatures which led to disgrace because they were men adorned with gifts from God (Calvin 1847:244-26).
In contrast to their titles of honour, their shame came as a result of their wickedness and crime. Driver (1904:84) notes that the םיִלִפְמ were also mentioned in Numbers 13:33 as members of a giant race which lived in Canaan at the time of the exodus, and in whose eyes the spies were likened to ―grasshoppers‖. They were ancient men of prowess and renown in Hebrew folklore, and doubtless deeds of insolence and courage were attributed to them. The existence of םי ִרֹבִג alone was scary and when related to the gods, it was taken that they were honourable creatures, which were either divine or semi-divine in nature. It is on this note that most scholars related them to angels but actually, they were not referred to as (malekim) but םיִלִפְמ and םי ִרֹבִג.
Predictably, Cassuto analyzes the םיִלִפְמ as giants who fell and the םי ִרֹבִג as mighty men. The word םי ִרֹבִג was used often in legends concerning angels who fell from heaven and since the םיִהלֱֹאָה־יֵנְב were greater men or human princes, they became the bene rabhehayya (―sons of great ones‖ or ―sons of judges‖) who were born before the flood in the land of the living. In the ―men of ―name‖, ―respect‖ or ―renown‖ hassem, the shem means name, not Noah‘s son. Several myths existed at that time about the sexual union of gods and human daughters which produced creatures which were half gods and half-human, and were regarded also as deities. Among the Canaanites, such stories were told and even some poems in Ugaritic inscriptions implied that El married two daughters of men and gave birth to divinities. This is possibly a surviving fragment of the mythological saga of the ancient Near East that was preserved in the book of Genesis as a pagan legend (Cassuto 1944:298-300). The reference communicates the existence of the םי ִרֹבִג but does not give a clear description of them, as it mentions only their magnitude and type.
Again, since naphal is not a word for angels or a word for judges, how come it is viewed as angels or judges by some scholars? There is a great gap in time and space between the use of
134
םיִלִפְמ in Numbers 13:33 and its occurrence in Genesis 6:1-4, and shows no relationship between the two. The reference in Job 1 and 2 preferably refers to ancient times. The mention of םיִלִפְנin Ezekiel 32:20-27 indicates that they fell as mighty men as in Genesis 6:1-4. Westermann (1984:378) explains that, ―Only later in the context of history was Nephilim used to designate giants, a group of people particularly tall, wherever they happened to be‖. At times described as mythical beings98 or semi-gods, similar to Gilgamesh description of the Creatures as partly gods and partly human or to Babylonian and Greek myths of creation, they were the fruits of the union of the gods and the beautiful daughters of men. Possibly such myths were narrated to depict the honour that such beings deserved.
The use of םיִלִפְמ shows that vs.4 is related to vs.1 and 2.The use of gigantes in the LXX also suggests that the marriage was possibly of angels, and the םיִלִפְמ refers to ―the warriors of the
olden days‖, indicating a long time in remote antiquity. This is to say they are humans of famous names and background (Wenham 1987:143). Hamilton is of the opinion that they
were the bastard offspring of the union between the god-like creatures and the daughters of men who were compared to the Anaks, that is, in reference to those who fell on their own or by the natural means of death. They begot the mighty men hagibborim which is also interpreted as old beings (me olam) – men of reputation or famous celebrities. He compares the creatures to the great builders of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:4 referring to them as ―men of name‖ (Hamilton 1990:269-271).
In most cases, women who were achievers were celebrated and anyone who related with them saw himself as one. This was possibly the reason they married just any of the women. Since all of them were beautiful and good looking, trying to select a wife in such a situation would only lead to confusion. Therefore, they simply took them. Matthews identifies the םיִלִפְמ99
in the fallen relationship with the םיִלִפְמ which means miscarriage, since they were expelled from the heavens. Numbers 13:33 also indicates that their descendants survived the flood. They were later compared to the Anakites (םי ִרֹבִג or giants), who were also identified as
98 This kind of stories existed among the Egyptians who they described the birth of Pharaoh. In Phoenicia, the story of the Ouranus and Gaia is told in the Hurarian myths as seen in Hittite texts. Stories of giants also existed among the Arabs and Germans. In primeval histories, such stories were not just Jewish inventions but an ancient Near Eastern belief and tradition.
99 Stigers (1976:99) is of the opinion that the reference to the םיִלִפְּנ is to show that they contributed to the ִ increase of wickedness and corruption even as ―famous men ― and that the mysterious marriage emphasizes the degenerated and shameful act that entered into the world. Though they were not well understood, instead of attracting respect they ended as men of dishonour who did not care about the norms of their community or what