So as the title suggests, I want to deal with one of the weirdest passages in all of Scripture. It comes from the first few verses of Genesis 6; it is the small section leading up to the flood narrative that comes in the next few chapters. I will provide the text so that my later comments will make more sense.
When the people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days- and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6:1-6 NRSV)
All right, so what the heck does that mean? Apparently there is some sort of weird angelic/human intermarrying going on that leads to the production of semi-divine superbabies that wield swords and crossbows (that is an assumption on my part), then God decides to shorten the lifespan of humans, then God decides to wipe out mankind altogether (minus Noah via the flood). Well, the one consistent thing about this passage is that no one knows what the heck it is really saying. But I would like to point out a couple of things that stand out to me in this passage anyway.
First, we need to consider the position of those first 4 verses involving the mutant angel/human babies. They are sandwiched between the genealogy of Genesis 5 and God’s expression of His sorrow for creating humans and decision to “blot out from the earth the human beings” that He created. So as chapter 5 outlines the family line of Adam and Eve through their son Seth, we hear about a bunch of dudes living to be 800 and 900 years old until we get to Noah. Immediately after this genealogy we find out about these Nephilim, and promptly we are informed of the wickedness of all humankind (minus Noah) and how God decides to wipe them out.
Whether or not the author of Genesis means to paint a chronological link between the marriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men and the flood narrative, I think their proximity to each other in the text is something worth consideration. The products of these marriages were “heroes of old, warriors of renown,” does this idea of semi-divine heroes sound familiar to anything in antiquity? O ya, I think it does. If you aren’t following me, ill give you some names: Achilles, Hercules, Perseus, Gilgamesh, and Theseus (and that’s just a few). I was tempted to add Miley Cyrus to this list, but I am pretty sure she is more likely to be a robot than a demi-god. All of these are heroes from the mold of divine/human marriages (or something like that) that typically follow the pattern of using their superhuman strength and ability to achieve glory and renown for themselves.
Perhaps this passage is positioned immediately before the flood narrative to make a statement about the nature of God. I think it is possible; nay, likely, that the author of Genesis wants to assert that the God of Genesis does not accept the ancient ideal of a hero. In fact, he is repulsed by these spear flinging, man slaying, body-oiling WWF superstars to the point that He regrets creating humans entirely. It is also possible that I am reading too much into the text, but I think there is a precedent for this throughout Scripture.
One need turn no more than a few pages to see God choose the lovable trickster Jacob to father his chosen nation instead of Esau, who by description seems to possess all of the major “heroic” qualities by ancient standards. Esau is hairy enough to make Burt Reynolds proud, he is skilled with the bow and loves himself a good stew. In all probability, Esau is the kind of guy that eats beef jerky, does bicep curls for the ladies, and drinks mountain dew with his cereal in the morning. But in spite of these things, God chooses the much weaker, more cowardly brother.
Another telling example of this theme comes through the severe contrast between Saul and David. Of these two kings, Saul clearly fits the bill of an ancient hero with his dominating height, physical prowess, and skills with the ladies (although David is not particularly lacking in any of these categories). But Saul proves himself to wield a supremely self-centered heart and a temper that would make Dennis Rodman and Rasheed Wallace jealous, and incidentally his story is one of the most tragic in all of Scripture. In contrast to this, while David also displays heroic qualities and prowess in battle, he is not an obvious candidate for kingship in the same vein as Saul. But this younger brother who spent all of his formative years shepherding his flocks turns out to be a man after God’s own heart.
Perhaps I have been a bit long-winded in forming my argument, but I believe that these things may be partly what Paul has in mind when he says in 1 Corinthians 1 that God chooses the foolish things to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong, working in “the things that are not—to reduce to nothing the things that are.” Certainly I do not assume that this text condemns anyone who wields any physical prowess. But I think the common quality that Esau, Saul, and all the pagan heroes of old display is the relentless pursuit for self-glory and satisfaction by means of their own greatness. Compare that with great heroes of Scripture like Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and David, who even when they sin, display hearts that are increasingly humble and obedient toward God.
Surely I am making a pretty big leap from these six verses to Esau, Saul, and the ancient heroes of antiquity. But the link between semi-divine heroes and ancient lore lead me to believe that this text is a display of God’s disapproval of those who use their prowess to bring notoriety and honor to themselves and the ancient narratives that glorified such behavior.
Great entry. I think it's clear that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble throughout all of the scriptures. There definitely was no room in His creation for these God-like figures.
ReplyDeleteThis passage is very interesting to debate on. I wrote a paper on it in seminary, and i landed on the traditional, but controversial, interpretation that these were indeed some human/angelic bred super-freaks. Lots of great commentaries that explain all the proposed solutions, and all have merit.
But i think you make a good point, that regardless of whether these creatures were divine or not, we can all agree that it's showing that God never tolerates beings who elevate themselves to God-like figures, and in doing so, rob him of his glory. (Romans 1 explains this as well). Good job reagey.