What's the deal with Genesis 6:1-7

I shall quote this article at length because it is a helpful guide in helping one understand the strangest passage in the Bible (I don't expect anyone to read it all, but for the very curious people it might do them some good):

"The first matter and indeed the main thing about which there has been the greatest amount of discussion has to do with the meaning of verses 1 and 2. What is meant by the phrase "Sons of God"? To whom is this referring? Likewise, who are the "daughters of men"? What is the reference for this phrase?
Well, as you can imagine, bible scholars over the years have speculated a great deal about these things and a number of proposals for how to understand these phrases have been put forward. However, the vast majority of scholars, as far as I can tell, end up taking one of two main positions, which we will spend the next few minutes considering.
One viewpoint takes the position that "Sons of God" is a reference to angelic beings that entered into God's creation and engaged in sexual relations with human beings - with the women who are spoken of in verse 1 as rapidly multiplying across the face of the earth, as the human race expands itself. Some of the arguments that are marshaled to support this position are:

1) The phrase "sons of God" while not appearing anywhere else in Moses' writings - and so difficult to be sure of - does nevertheless appear in other places in the Old Testament - like Job - where the context makes it clear that the phrase is a reference to angelic beings.
2) The co-habitation and co-mingling of angelic and human beings does seem to fit with a
developing plot line that shows the downward progression of sin. So, for example, sin begins with the woman and the man in the garden, starting internally with certain thought patterns which then lead to some external actions that are sinful. It then manifests itself in the man and woman's relationship with each other. It then manifests itself in a pronounced curse which affects the creation itself and all future humanity. We then see it in the story of Cain and Abel - with Abel being murdered by his brother. We next see it in the genealogy of the descendants of Cain, and especially in Lamech who is a violent murderer who boasts to his wives about his deeds. And then, in this viewpoint at least, the climax of all this is when the angelic beings come and mix with the human race, spreading the corruption of sin to cosmic, supernatural dimensions.
3) In keeping with all of that - this sort of radical, bizarre evil would help explain why God's response to it - in the form of an all-devastating flood - seems to be equally radical.
4) The view that these are angelic beings would seem to be supported by other passages in the New Testament which are possibly referring to this very event - or at least to something like it. (Read 1 Peter 3:18-19; 2 Peter 2:4-10a; Jude 6-7). It is possible that all these verses have in view the events of Genesis 6 - seen from this certain perspective.
5) As one scholar seems to suggest (Kidner), this perspective could be seen as a second attempt on the part of angelic beings to thwart the purposes of God. The first attempt was what we have already seen in Genesis 3 when Satan, in the form of the serpent, comes to the woman and tempts her to sin. After those events, in which she was promised she would become "like gods” she and her husband are cast out of the garden so that they might not eat of the tree of life in their sinful condition and thus gain immortality in their fallen state. As this one scholar suggests, in Genesis 6 we have not just one but a number of angelic beings again coming to not one but many "daughters" of men and trying to achieve for them both power and possibly the immortality that had been denied them by means of this unholy union between humanity and angels.
6) Finally, the view that these were angels is possibly linked to the account here of the Nephilim - mighty warriors. In other words, even though it is not specifically stated, it might be taken as implied that the Nephilim are the sort of "hybrid" offsping of the union between women and angels. However, this is far from obvious in the passage, but I will say more about that in a moment.

At any rate, that is one view that many scholars maintain as the most likely reading of these verses. The other view that is held by many scholars is that the phrase "Sons of God" refers not to angelic beings but simply to men who were born in the godly line of Seth.
Correspondingly, in this view the "daughters of men" are women who belong to the ungodly line - the descendants of Cain. And so, this view is simply saying that what began to happen was a mixing of the two lines - the godly with the ungodly. This greatly angered God, and then we all know what happened after that. Now, some of the main arguments in favor of this view are:
1) It does seem to fit better with the immediate context of the last couple of chapters. In Genesis 3:15, as we have already seen, contained in the curses pronounced against the woman was the promise that the offspring of the woman would crush the offspring of the serpent. And so there is forecast there the development of two lines of humanity. What we see next in Genesis takes this further with chapter 4 showing us the Cain and Abel conflict - which was simply the seed of the serpent (Cain) making a futile, but pre-emptive strike against the seed of the woman (Abel). We then see the story of Cain and his descendants and the development of that line, followed by the genealogy of Seth with his descendants the development of the other line. To then see chapter 6 as this event where the descendants of Seth were being lured away by lust and sensuality into illicit marriages with the descendants of Cain would seem to be flow quite well with the immediate context.
2) To regard the "Sons of God" as angels does, it could be argued, seem like something of an intrusion into the text. We're not really talking about angels here; that's not the subject of concern and then, all of the sudden, there they are. It does seem a little surprising but then it must be said that the same thing could be said of the events in Genesis 3. There you are, the story going along just fine about creation when suddenly, out of the blue, there is a talking snake.
3) The view that "sons of God' is referring to the descendants of Seth and not to angelic beings also seems to fit better with what follows in Genesis 6:3. In verse 3 you have God saying that he is not going to put up with the sinfulness of man forever. Indeed, God even puts a time limit on the whole thing saying that the clock is running and that after 120 years, he will carry out his judgment against humanity. The important thing' about all this for the point at hand is simply that if verses 1 and 2 were talking about a co-mingling of angelic beings and humanity, then you would think that the words here would include judgments against angels as well as humans, for they were equally guilty. But no word is mentioned. When you compare this to Genesis 3 you see that God pronounces curses and judgment against both the humans and against the serpent, or Satan. At the same time, while no word of judgment is mentioned here - if you take into account the other passages that we just read from the New Testament as

referring to these events - then in those passages you do find promised words of judgment that awaits angelic beings.
4) This view is also possibly supported by the fact that the "sons of God" here - whoever they are - are described as "taking wives" to themselves - language which is almost always used to refer to the act of marriage and thus seems to fit more naturally with what humans do, not angels. The text that is usually brought in to support this point is Matthew 22:29-30. This text, understood one way, could be read as rendering the marriage of angels outside the realm of possibility but then, read another way, does not necessarily exclude that possibility at all. So, it's not a strong point, but it is a point nonetheless.
5) Finally, in support of this view a scholar named Currid says that a better translation of Genesis 4:26 would make the meaning of this passage more obvious. In short, he makes the case that instead of saying that "people began to call upon the name of the Lord" a better translation is "men began to be called by the name Yahw*' or, in other words, men began to be called by the name of God. If that is correct, then for Genesis 6:2 to come along later and refer to actions taken by "sons of God" then it would seem to be a more obvious linguistic connection. And so, those two views - that "sons of God" refers to angelic beings OR that it refers to the descendants of Seth - those are the main ones being offered and defended. But the reality is that there are problems that arise no matter which one you take.
As far as the "angelic" view is concerned, it does seem to interrupt the flow of the story as we see the developing account of the line of Cain vs the line of Seth. And yet, while it seems to interrupt that flow, it seems to enhance another one - the downward progression of sin. The angelic view also, as we have seen, leaves us wondering why no immediate word of judgment is pronounced against the angels for their part in the sin. And, further, it seems to contradict Jesus words about angels in Matthew 22.
As far as the "two lines of humanity" view is concerned, you have the same problem as outlined above - it flows well with one line of development, but seems to interrupt another one.
Another difficulty is outlined by a guy named Motyer who says, "the mere mingling of some godly with some ungodly humans is hardly the sort of climactic sin which Gen 6 appears to require by its place in the narrative." To that, Motyer adds this comment: "there is no reason why a mixed human marriage should produce the sort of offspring that Genesis 6:4 implies (although, it must be said, the text is not necessarily implying this and, in fact, may be trying to make the exact opposite point - that the Nephilim were not at all superhuman but were simply extraordinary humans). One final problem with this view is that it would seem to present a different picture than what is suggested by the New Testament passages we read earlier."

Sine - e = Sin!!

One of the major topics we will try to cover is the big naughty s-word: SIN. Try to come with some thoughts about sin, what it is, etc. I'll try to make sure we are all thoroughly depressed and ashamed by the end of the night. But remember, it is only by seeing the ugliness of our sin that our savior is glorious!

S'more questions for this week

1) Mankind has been made in the "image of God." This is perhaps one of the most significant claims that the Bible makes regarding mankind. What do you think being made "in the image of God" entails? How was that significant to Adam and Eve then, and to us today?

2) We see that in Genesis 2-3 mankind was created to have a special relationship with God, but because of sin that relationship was lost. This isn't so much a question as something to note--the Bible is a story of restoring this relationship between God and man.

3) What was so wrong about Eve's sin? Spend some time thinking about what sin actually is, and what the fundamental problem with it is.

4) What is with the curses God proclaims after Adam and Eve sin?

Words from a man wiser than I

"The big problem with Bible study today is that we think it should be easier than other things we do. We study recipes for quality meals, how-to books for all kinds of things—carpentry, plumbing, automobile maintenance and so on—and read vociferously for our hobbies. Why do we think the Bible is the only subject we should not have to study?! Let me challenge you—make the Bible your hobby. At one level I do not like the analogy; the Bible must be so much more than a hobby! But at another level, what if we spent as much time and money on Bible study as we do our hobbies? What if we took the same amount we spend on golf clubs and courses or on skiing equipment and skiing trips, and put it into Bible study? Yes, encyclopedias, commentaries and other reference materials are expensive. But so is everything we do. The question is about priorities: what is important enough for our time and money? I want to encourage you to get and use the tools that enable us to bridge the gap back to Bible times and authorial intention."

Grant Osborne

Study #1

Ok, here we go. We are going to kick the study off by going through Genesis 1-6.

We all have read these chapters to death and back again, I understand that. When you read it this week, try to take yourself out of your 21st mindset and context, and read it as someone would have read it centuries ago. Since the Bible wasn't directly written to us, we need to read it as the original audience would have read it (yes, we won't do this perfectly, but it's a good habit to get into). What would the original audience look for? How might they react to what was written. What would be significant to them?

I'll post more questions later, but this is just a start. May God's grace allow us to be impacted in the reading of this text!

"More reading?"

Not wanting to be the dragon that hoards all the gold to myself, I felt it necessary to explain those links on the right side of the blog page.

Apologetics encyclopedia-a vast storehouse of (yes, you guessed it!) Christian apologetic material. I frequent it if I have a problem with a verse or passage, and it has great recommendations for books and resources.

Between two worlds-a blog that covers the gamut of theology, philosophy, and culture. Lots of great links to other resources, as well as inspiring quotes by godly men of old.

Desiring God-the ministry of John Piper. Please come to this site at least once/day. Sermons, articles, meditations, videos, the list goes on.

Dr. Albert Mohler's blog-the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is a man very involved in issues confronting Christendom today. Abortion, ethics, literature, books, society, and then some. Please come here often if you want to see the world we live in through a Christian lens.

Ligonier Ministries-the ministry of R.C. Sproul. Great video and audio lectures on a wide swath of Bible topics. Their motto is "renewing your mind," and that's what they achieve.

Monergism-if there could be only one website I could ever visit, it would be this one. This is the great bastion of orthodox Christianity on the internet. Articles and sermons on any topic one could want, and a killer bookstore housing anything one would ever need. I don't recommend this site, I require it!

Stand to reason-a great ministry to confronts the secular world with Christian truth. Great articles on issues like: relativism, pluralism, ethical issues, and culture hot-spots. Highly recommended.

The Gaius Project-a site I just found that addresses the relationship between art and Christianity. I think Pat might get the most out of this, but anyone could benefit from this.

No man is an island, and no island is a man

So let's discuss something.

Why did God make us?

I'm not asking what our purpose is, or out of what material we were made, but why we were made. What was God thinking when He dropped us on this big rock 93 million miles away from a flaming-hot lightbulb in the sky?

To Blog or not to Blog

Gentlemen.

This Blog is truly the first of its kind: a supplementary conversational tool to aid and promote thinking and learning in our Saturday night small group.

Let us usher in a new era of good conversation.

Each of you needs to become a MODERATOR so that you may post your own messages. Ask Kevin if you're not one already.

The purpose of this blog is to pose and discuss various questions from the reading that you would normally consider tangential to our Saturday night discussion. Simply put, we are getting more bang for our buck each week with this blog.

Hope you all like it. See you in the forums!

Patro

This is the first entry in the blog. Exciting?