God judges the world for violence and corruption (Gen 6:11-13), but what struck me the most was verses 5-6 "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, and the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to His heart. (Gen 6:5-6 ESV, emphasis mine)." The violence and moral corruption on the earth is a result of the "intention of the thoughts" of the heart. In the New Testament, Jesus proclaims how the evil man does come from the heart. It is what comes out of a man's heart that makes him unclean, not what he takes into his body. It wasn't the violence and corruption that was the primary factor causing the LORD's heart to hurt, it was the thoughts and intentions of man's heart. God, the creator, was sorry. He was grieved that He created man, because of their evil hearts.
God sent the flood as a judgement upon the world for the wickedness of man. This flood devistated the land. Killed the animals, birds, flowers, insects, trees. It started the restructing of the continents. It changed the whole atmosphere of the globe. Why? Because of the evil of man's HEART that outflowed into corruption and violence.
I rarely consider how the thoughts and intentions of my heart affect those around me. It is a foreign thought to us that what we think and dwell on in the privicy of our bed-rooms could affect friends and family. In Genesis, we see a clear picture of how man's thoughts and the intentions of his heart caused the destruction of innocent songbirds, and butterflies. Creation, already cursed because of man's sin, is now destroyed because of man's evil thoughts and intentions of his heart. How serious sin must be to the creator God. How vulnerable is the physical earth. Man thinks only of himself, and perhaps of those he loves. Yet, his sin incited God to destroy the whole world by a flood. And in the future, judgement will again be cast, and she will be destroyed by fire.
In the meantime, the earth's suffering hasn't ceased because thousands of years have past, and the physical evidence of the flood isn't as recognizable. Rather, "the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we outselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:22-23, ESV)." The curse from Gen 3, started the suffering of the earth, and until that curse is lifted, untill the redeemed have their Glorified bodies and there is a new heaven and a new earth - She groans. She groans not under the weight of pollution, and mismanagement*, she groans under the oppression of sin, and the curse resulting therefrom.
So, for us, today. May we always remember how seriously God takes sin. We want to laugh at and brush off our "mistakes," without a thought concerning the effect even our petty thoughts have the the people and world around us. When Paul speaks of taking every thought captive (2 Cor 10:5), may our minds go to the vivid example of the flood and the heartache each man's inward life brought his creator.
*Pollution and mismanagement are results of sin. They are A symptom, not the cause. Just as the forces of weather, and the destruction they bring are a symptom.
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (Gen 6:4a)"
Foot notes, and even BDB (Hebrew lexicon) say that nephilim are giants. They get this from the LXX (Septuagint = Greek translation done by Jewish scholars in Egypt) and the Vulgate (Latin translation done by the Catholic church, which probably relies heavily upon the LXX).
Nephilim is not a name of a species, or nation (i.e. Egyptians). It is the Hebrew word Nephilim which was directly transliterated into English, and not translated. There are times, where transliteration is a poor choice on the part of the translators, because they then don't do the Hebrew justice in the English text. This time, the transliteration was wise – to translate the term would give too much translator bias.
Nephilim comes from the Hebrew 3 consonant root N-PH-L which means "to fall, lie, die a violent death, attack" as a verb (naphal). As a noun it can mean: naphel- miscarriage, abortion, maphalah- ruin, maphelet – carcass, ruin, overthrow*.
Walke/O'Conner discusses the different types of vowel pointing in nouns. For this text, the noun is nephil (-im makes the word plural). This particular vowel pattern is used for adjectives, substantives, and professional terms. Which follows the typically picturesque way Hebrew describes and names things (see ** in PART 1). The Nephilim are a group of people known for violence, attacks, carcasses, ruin, destruction. They are the "mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown (Gen 6:4d, ESV)**."
All this to say, Nephilim is a descriptive term describing a specific people group known for violence and ferocity. Which could be why the Israelites called the large, fierce people in Canaan Nephilim in Numbers 13:30. They died out in the flood, as did the children from the union of the "sons of God" and "daughters of man." But they are part of the reason for the flood. In Gen 6:11-13 God cites the "corruption" and "violence" on the earth as reasons for destruction. My personal take on this passage is that Gen 6:1-7 is a descriptive mirror to Gen 6:8-22. When you read Gen 6:11-13 and you see the word "corrupt" you should think back to the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man" in Gen 6:1-2. When you read the word "violence," you should picture Gen 6:4, the Nephilim***.
BUT DON'T MISS Gen 6:5 – "The LORD saw, that the wickedness of adam/man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry/regretted that he had man adam/man on the earth, and it grieved/hurt/pained Him to His heart." God calls down judgment upon the corruption and violence, but the sin in THE HEART of mankind caused Him pain and sorrow. Never forget that your thoughts are open to Him, and He can be pained by our actions.
*If you are interested: Changing the vowels in a Hebrew root changes the flavor of the meaning and can turn the word from a verb to a noun. If you a "m" to the front of a verb you change it into a certain types of participles which can act as a verbal-noun "falling" or a noun "ruin." FYI. :-D
** Some people think the Nephilim are descended from the union of the "sons of God" and "daughters of man." I disagree. "The Nephilim2 were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown." The phrase in italics is a dependent clause giving time and linking the events with the Nephilim to the rest of the mess on earth at that time and is dependent upon the key phrase "also afterward" – logically, the Nephilim were on the earth at the time of Gen 6:1 BEFORE 6:2.
***And interesting note. If you search for previous uses of the root N-PH-L in Genesis the only time it is mentioned is when Cain is angry and about to kill Abel, and his face "fell." Perhaps the decedents of Cain are not the "daughters of man" but the Nephilim. Food for thought. J
Disclaimer: When teaching Bible, so often we focus on the few phrases, or topics that catch OUR (the audience) attention, rather than the points which the text (God) emphasizes. This blog post is going to follow that trend to the letter - I apologize. I will try to write a post about the whole passage later, so the text can be dealt with in a better way. Because, Bad men, Angels, and Giants are NOT, and may I repeat myself NOT God's point for Genesis 6 - they are cultural background issues, which we don't understand, so we get all caught up in understanding them, RATHER than what God is communicating... Ok, I'll begin now. :)
"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose (Gen 6:1-2, ESV)."
There are three basic views as to who/what the "sons of God" are.
I. Descendants of Seth. This view says that the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth, because it was his line that followed God. The "daughters of men" would be the descendants of Cain - who did not follow God, and therefore, must be differentiated from the descendants of Seth. Gen 4-5 deal with showing the two opposing lines: Cain (Gen 4) vs. Seth (Gen 5), therefore it could follow that the phrases "sons of God" and "daughters of man" are just a rewording of the before mentioned distinction.
II. Rulers, or mighty men. This view says that the "sons of God" were rulers of particular cities, or their sons: mighty men of valor, etc. "In some Near Eastern cultures, the King, who was understood to rule for a particular deity, was sometimes called the "son of Horus" or "son of El" or simply "son of god." ... There are a few places in Scripture where Israelite kings were actually referenced with this language (2 Sam 7:14 Psa 2:7, 45:6; 89:26-27). The king’s officials were sometimes likewise called the "sons" of the king, basically meaning committed and loyal servants (cf. 1 Chron 29:24). It was not a biological designation, but a title. (crivoice.org/giants.html)" Therefore, the "sons of God" are the powerful, ruling class.
III. Fallen Angels. The "sons of God" were fallen angels, who saw the beauty of human women, and wished to procreate/glorify themselves/whatever. This view cites Job 1:6 " Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them (ESV)." Job 1 is the only other passage in the OT, where the phrase "benay-ha'elohim (sons of God)" is used.
All of the above mentioned arguments (briefly summarized) have weaknesses and strengths. I disagree with points of all of them. Let me state right away that I do not believe the Nephilim come from the union of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man," so when any of the arguments use that - they can't that point. But more on this later.
Textually, Moses's point for Gen 6 is NOT about the "sons of God," "daughters of man," and the Nephilim. They are background pieces of explanation which the original audience would have been familiar with. (I just want to reiterate that point)
1. Genesis 4-5 give genealogies of Cain and Seth. Which is valid, but the problem lies in the say Seth's geology starts. Gen 5:1 "Zeh sapher toldot adam(These are the children/generations of Adam/man)"The Hebrew root word "adam" has been a key word throughout all of Genesis so far. It is the name of the first man, Adam. It is the name of the ground (adamah). Translators use this word almost interchangeably between "Adam" and "mankind." Gen 5 breaks the narrative flow of the book to give the account of the generations of Adam through Seth. So, when Gen 6 says "adam [Man] began to multiply" it is dealing with the same word. When verse 2 says "the daughters of adam [man]" it is using the same word. I think it is textually dishonest, so then say that the "daughters of man" are the descendents of Cain. The word "adam" is not used in the account of, or genealogy of Cain. If you follow it through logically, the "daughters of man" would have to be the daughters of Seth, not Cain, unless it is being used as "mankind" then the distinction between the two lines is pointless.
**Naming in English is different than naming in Hebrew. In English names are not noun names they are verbal handles so we know whom we are talking to- they might as well be numbers (#1, go tell your sister, #4 to do the dishes). Hebrew, even modern Hebrew (and some other languages like Chinese to an extent), does employ noun names, not exclusively, but often. A noun name is where a common noun word is taken and given to the child (dew, fountain, gift). The name Adam, means "man/mankind," which is fitting, since he was the founder of the human race.
2. If God wanted to make a distinction between the descendants of Cain and Seth, and bring to light how them intermarrying was bad, He could (and I think would) have simply said, "When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters to them the sons of Cain saw that the daughters of Seth, who follow me (or whatever clause he desired), were attractive, and they took as their wives. . ." There is no reason to disguise that connection, IF that is what the author is trying to communicate.
3. The above argument also goes for the 2nd argument, that the "sons of God" are a ruling class. Another problem with that view, is that although, culturally phrases like that may have been used to describe rulers of cities - we don't see any sort of ruling class, or kingship so far in the development of Genesis. The feel of the text is of a tribal patriarchal society, not the city-state arrangement of the Canaanite period. There may be confusion between the original participants (Noah, Nephilim, etc) in the account, and the original audience of the account (the Israelites when Moses wrote the Torah). The prevailing culture between the two could have been vastly different. You can't over read one into the other, though consideration is merited.
So, who are the "sons of God?"
3. We are left with the fallen angels as our only option (if we don't think outside of the three options given above).Now, to be nit-picky, I don’t like the term “angel.”The Hebrew word that is often translated as “angel” is “mal’ach” which means “messanger” and is also used for purely human individuals.There are two problems with this theory.
First, Jesus states in Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in Heaven (ESV)” But, to use this passage you have to make the following assumptions: 1.) That since in the NT and church age angels can’t procreated – they NEVER could. 2.) There is only ONE kind of spiritual being all encompassed by Jesus’ use of the word “angel/messenger.”I don’t have space in this already very long blog to discuss this further, but there are at least several “species” (for lack of a better term) of angels mentioned through-out scripture.Since God can do anything, the option that one species could have fallen, and had the ability to procreate is always open.
Secondly, In Job 1, “sons of God” is thought to be used of good angels, in comparison to Satan.The "Sons of God" in Job 38:7 are good. This argument is hard to refute.
Thirdly, If the author had meant angels/spiritual beings, he could have said so. BUT it is at least worthy of mentioning, that so far, spiritual beings haven't been mentioned in Torah. We know they exist because of later texts, but so far, outside of the serpent, which is talked about in purely physical animalistic terms, there has been no contact with spirit beings, nor vocabulary given to describe them. Any understanding of spirit beings at this point in the text is picked up from later passages and refurred here.
I personally don’t have a huge problem with the thought of some sub-species of fallen angels, having the ability to procreate, and choosing to do so, but there isn't textual proof.This option could give a broader base to God’s disgust with the human race and gives further reason for why He tells Noah that “The earth was corrupt/marred/spoiled/ruined. . . and behold it was corrupt/marred/spoiled/ruined for all flesh had corrupted/marred/spoiled/ruined their way on the earth (Gen 11a and 12b).”
4. BUT there is the option that the "Sons of God" are simply individuals who walked with God who married ungodly women. It seems like an under-dramatic ending, to the complex arguments - but has great textual appeal. It is also theologically safer, and can pull in the "sons of God" terminology of the NT speaking to general believers.
(I personally haven't decided exactly which option I believe. Angels, or those who walk with God have the most merit. But we don't have textual PROOF for any of them. Genesis is a difficult book, because it was the first written, so it is hard to take later material, and define Genesis by it.)
The creation account is one of the first Bible "stories" children learn. Anyone who is raised in a Bible teaching church is probably bored with it by the time they reach 10 years old. God created the world. . . blah blah blah. . . sun, moon, stars. . . plants. . . animals. . . yup, gotcha.
What a tragedy! How can we turn the remarkable word of God into a "boring" list of days and objects. This chapter is the first inspired word of God given to His people. Genesis 1 is HUGE, but we get so caught up in creation vs. evolution debates, or in trying to remember whether the sun or plants were created first (plants were), rather than seeing what God is reveling about Himself. See, Genesis 1 isn't as much about creation as it is about God. What God revealed about Himself through this chapter must have been fairly earth-shattering to the ancient Hebrews, and should be to us as well. God, through Moses, started taking the common world-view of what god/s are, and said, this is who I am.
Place yourself in the middle of the desert. You’ve lived the last several years as a walking miracle, led by God from your borrowed (rented) home by promise of a place for you and your children (owned). But you don’t see it. Nothing lays before you but rocks, stones, and dirt. Mountains touch the sky, not broken by stream or mist or rain.
Moses stands before you and the rest of your people. The words he speaks and reads to you, are not like any you’ve heard before. Perhaps a similar legend has been handed down, whispered in the night. But now, in front of all, before millions, the words are spoken loud and clearly. They are different words. They possess and innate power you cannot explain – held enraptured you listen.
“In beginning God, created the heavens and the earth.” Barasheit bara elohim et hashamyim ve’et ha’aretz.
It is a pleasure to hear an account of your god told in your tongue, rather than stories of other gods being spoken in their tongues. See, gods we are used to. Every people group has them. They are national, like the gods of the Egyptians, or tribal, like some of the Bedouin. These gods are tied to their people and their land; their power and scope is limited as such. Wars and conflict between people groups, like the Egyptians and Hebrews, are viewed as conflicts between the gods. The more powerful god wins and his people triumph. Your God is the one who appears in the day as a cloud, and in the night as a pillar of fire. A God of miracles, wrath, and power. The one who crushed Egypt with His wonders and brought His people out, to the desert. But creating? This concept is newer.
The creation poems of Egypt and Mesopotamia, are stories of how their numerous gods came into being. Poems of who begot whom, and who did not get along with the others. These tales dealt with the lifestyle and attitudes of the gods, not the creation of the physical world. This – this account is different.
“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”
Moses recounts how God merely spoke and the sky, the land, plants, sea creatures, birds, land animals, Man, all came to be from nothing – immediately obeying His word. This is an accounting of what happened long ago – spoken as fact, not in the poetical verse of the nearby nations. Moses uses verbs and the sentence structure of the language to communicate important differences about a very real God, to His very real people. The forms of language (grammar) indicating that this account is not myth or legend. This account is fact, history of the world.
What stands out in our minds is how dramatically different our God is from the gods of other surrounding cultures. In Egypt the gods are limited to their people and country. This God, has taken us from one country (Egypt) through land of other nations, and other gods. He has surmounted all obstacles, and guided His people to a place far from where we began. We are used to gods limited by time, and space and to the creative scope of their people, this God stretches the boundaries of our minds. He seems separated from the physical realm as He speaks things into existence - almost like He is outside looking in. Yet, He is personally involved with naming, and approving each step of the process. Nothing goes unnoticed, nothing left on touched. The world that was “without form and empty” is now formed (land, sea, sky) and is full, teaming with life – all from His spoken word.
He is a God in control. The gods of other nations barely know the future (if that), they are bound by time and place. They can't leap out of their poems to bring manna from heaven. They are completely, on totally concerned with their own affairs. The God being spoken of here is not selfish and petty, squabbling with siblings and lovers. He is self-existent, and self-sufficient, oriented toward mankind and aware of our lives. He not only has the power to create, He has the power to bless the creation. He is both in this realm, and apart from it, leaving Him in a position of watchful supremacy, in control of all.
Fighting with God. Telling Him what I want from life. My current life doesn’t match up. Thinking of possibilities, positive and negative. If I’m stuck with the negative – life doesn’t seem worth it.
“Am I enough?”
“What does ‘enough’ look like,” I cry back. How does a relationship with You settle my earthly desires and wants? You aren’t of the physical realm, to be seen, touched, felt. What does it mean that You’re enough?! I want SO much out of life, but I’m to be content with You, even if everything else vanishes before my eyes?
“Am I enough?” The question reverberates in my mind, “If your life continues, and you NEVER got anything you want. . . Am I enough?”
A good Sunday School girl doesn’t have an honest answer to that question. Per “truth” I’m obligated to say, “Yes, Lord. You’re enough,” but my flesh rages a resounding, “NO – You can’t be serious!” My lips can speak the correct words, but does my heart really believe them? Let’s be honest, “No, Lord. You aren’t enough.” OR perhaps more accurately, “I don’t know HOW to find enough in You. I’m lost, chasing dreams, when you’re standing, waiting for me, reminding me of Your love, showing me Your truth.”
I think ahead to my lesson on Genesis 5: a genealogy from Adam to Noah. My mind stops at Enoch. We know so little about him. He’s dropped in the middle of a genealogy. We know his name, how long he lived, his son’s name, and that he had other children. But what did he DO with his 365 years? Did he have a happy, beautiful, Godly family – full of joy and laughter? Were his ambitions, dreams, and deepest desires fulfilled? We don’t know. But, what we do know is that his God was ENOUGH. You see, “All the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not found, for God took him (Gen 5:23-24).”
The imagery here is powerful. Enoch walked with God. And one day, never came home. He was not found.
You have a man, father, grandfather. Perhaps a teacher, mentor, craftsman, leader, shepherd. But his heart’s desire is to be with God, walking and talking – fellowshipping as close friends. One day, they don’t stop. Their walk continues. Enoch is so wrapped up in God that he doesn’t necessarily notice when they leave the earthly realm for the heavenly dimension. They walk past the sunset, to a place others only reach by death.
“Enoch walked with God.” His God was enough. Notice the text doesn’t say, “Enoch was dragged around by God.” How often do we feel that way? No – walking is done by choice.
What a picture of growing in ‘enoughness.’ Enoch was a human, just as we are. I’m sure he struggled with the pull of his family, verses walking with God. I’m sure he had heart-ache and trouble (his son Methuselah was the only one in the whole genealogy to die in the flood. Perhaps a rebel against God?). But as time went, and as he grew closer to God, he could, one day, continue walking with God into paradise without looking back. Because, God was all he needed. He is truly enough.
(I wrote this the night before teaching on Genesis 5. God is really working my heart over with the truth that HE is totally and completely ENOUGH. I will be getting to Gen 1-4, eventually. But I figure, why not start with what is already written!)
