Undergoing review is a paper by Leroy Birney, M.A., M.Div., titled, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol: JETS 13:1 (Winter 1970).
He quotes the Gen 6 affair text, as I term it, first verse thusly, “And it came to pass when mankind began to become too numerous upon the face of the land and daughters were born to them that sons of God saw daughters of mankind that they were fair.”
Leroy Birney notes, “Those who take the term bene ha Elohim, ‘sons of god,’ to mean the chosen portion of mankind, the Sethites, usually consider ‘daughters of men’ by contrast to be the unbelieving Cainite women.”
That’s known as the Sethite view and is a late-comber of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
And you can surely see whey since well, consider the qualifying term used of each lineage, “chosen portion…Sethites…unbelieving Cainite” and he further asserts, “godly Sethite lineage…ungodly Cainite…godly line…godly line” of Sethites, “degeneracy of the line of Cain” vs., “righteous family” of Sethites.
To give you an idea of how they attempt to support a view that is so foreign to any text, note that, “Sethite line appears as a distinct entity in the context of this portion of Genesis ( as angels do not).” Yet, what could be a more distinct entity than Angels? Yet, the point is that a sudden appearance of Angels in the text seems out of context. Yet, by definition, any one or thing that makes a sudden appearance into the text is a distinct entity.
Gen 1 is about God and His creation but then, “man…male and female” are distinct entities.
Gen 2 is about Adam and Eve but then, “the serpent” is a distinct entity.
Gen 3 is about Adam, Eve, and the serpent but then the Cherubim are distinct entities—well, only sort of since the serpent was really the Cherub Satan.
And so, distinct entities in Gen 6 is actually in keeping with hermeneutics, with reading comprehension since such is how chronological texts are written, after all: someone/something does not appear in a text until it does—with or without special introduction.
Note that Leroy Birney’s argumentation is, “It is in the context of the Sethite line that it says, ‘began men” in general, actually, “to call upon the name of Jehovah’ (Gen. 4:25-26), and Enoch who ‘walked with God’ (Gen. 5:24) was in the line of Seth. Then, ‘Quite naturally the title ‘sons of God’ can be taken as another specification of the discrimination already established’” exclusively Sethites—because, “men” did that and one was uniquely related to God.
Yet, while we’re supposed to think that, “the ‘sons of god’ are” especially Godly, “Sethite men” well then, they weren’t so especially Godly after all since, “we see a progression of corruption leading to the Flood.” Yet, it’s blamed on, “the degeneracy of the line of Cain in chap. 4” which is a chapter that only lists one or two sins by one single member of that line, Lamech—plus, add on one sin by Cain—so that’s utterly ungracious to condemn an entire line based on two or three, on record, sins.
We’re then told, “only Noah’s family, of all the line of Seth, was saved” but we’ve no genealogies for any of the four, “saved” women so that’s an unsupportable assertion.
We’re told, “says [Meredith G.] Kline of his view that the ‘sons of god’ are dynastic rulers in the Cainite line. On this view, Genesis 6:1-4 is seen to pick up the themes of city-building, tyranny, and polygamy found in the description of Cain’s line in chapter 4.” So, apparently, building a city is as sinful as tyranny, of which there’s none in that chap and polygamy, for which we only have one example therein.
Thus, by hyperbolizing the Sethites (before throwing them under the bus) and Canites, the theory has the former as a, “righteous family” and, “Cainite tyrants as represented by Lamech in Genesis 4:19-24” even though his, so called, tyranny is described in those verses as:
19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. 22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
23 Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. 24 If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”
So, “took two wives” counts as one sin. Perhaps to, “dwell in tents and have livestock…play the lyre and pipe…forger of all instruments of bronze and iron” was pure evil, I don’t know.
And, “wounding me…striking me” means it may have been self-defense.
So, I unsure how any of that equals tyranny.
Leroy Birney then notes, “The view that the ‘sons of God’ means angels has been held by many” since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
He then wrote, “The pseudopigraphal Book of Enoch, compiled during the last two centuries B.C. says that 200 angels in heaven saw the beautiful daughters of men, lusted after them, and took them for wives with the result that they became pregnant and bore great giants” about which the key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Birney’s and 1 Enoch’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
In 1 Enoch the term Nephilim is rendered by such as “giants” and they are described as being MILES tall: great folklore, but poor reality form that Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”
Leroy Birney elucidates:
Two lines of support are adduced. One is the assertion that the books of II Peter and Jude accept the story in the Book of Enoch, and the other is that the usage of the term “sons of god” in the Bible favors this meaning.
II Peter 2:4 says, “But if God spared not the angels when they sinned….”
Jude 6-7 says, “The angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication… “
[Franz] Delitzsch says. that this supports Enoch’s sinning angel interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, “for toutois, [“with these”] ver. 7, refers back to angels.”
Keil however notes concerning the passage in Jude, “There is nothing here about marriages with the daughters of men or the begetting of children, even if we refer the word toutois [“with these”] … in verse 7 to the angels mentioned in verse 6,” because Jude speaks of fornication while Genesis 6 speaks of actual marriage…
Yet, that’s myopic since Jude’s emphasis was, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” and the Gen 6 affair pertains to, “sexual immorality” since it wasn’t meant to be and so it was a case of, “unnatural desire” by definition: fornication or copulation.
He continued thusly:
Actually, toutois, “with these,” can better be referred back to Sodom and Gomorrah, or to the inhabitants in them.
Concerning the passage in Peter, Keil says, “Peter is merely speaking of sinning angels in general whom God did not spare, and not of any particular sin on the part of a small number of angels. Besides, the Bible does not speak of more than one defection by angels, and that took place before the fall of man, since Satan tempted man in Eden.
Indeed, Peter doesn’t specify, “any particular sin” but places it pre-flood, “God did not spare angels when they sinned” and then, “but preserved Noah” then references, “a flood upon the world” then, “Sodom and Gomorrah” then, “rescued righteous Lot” along with a reference to, “the sensual conduct of the wicked.”
Indeed, “the Bible does not speak of more than one defection by angels” and Jude and Peter combined place their sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.
As for, “the Bible does not speak of” a, “defection by angels…that took place before the fall of man” that’s because their defection took place during the Gen 6 timeline. As for, “since Satan tempted man in Eden” well, he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub and his defection took place during the Gen 3 timeline.
Leroy Birney went on to write of, “the chief objections to interpreting ‘sons of god’ as angels” as including, “the whole conception of sexual life, as connected with God or angels, is absolutely foreign to Hebrew thought…there is no analogy in the Bible for the idea of inter-marriage of angels and men…Keil notes that there is no other reference to angels in the context and that Christ specifically stated that angels cannot marry (Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, cf. Luke 20:34-35)” so that, “The lack of any analogy in Scripture for the idea of angels having sexual functions or being able to cross-breed with the human race makes that interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4 untenable.”
It’s tricky to generically reference, “Hebrew thought” since we know not if that refers to the time of Abraham, Moses, et al., all the way until the advent of Rabbinic Judaism many millennia later.
I’m unsure why that there’s no analogy is some point against it: why should there be. Also, such inter-marriages are non-issues post-flood since, again, those Angels were incarcerated and there’s only a one-time sinful fall of Angels in the Bible.
To merely assert that, “Christ specifically stated that angels cannot marry” followed by unquoted citations is a great way to make a point but it invalid. See, “angels cannot marry” is a very specific and all-encompassing statement. Note that in Matt 22:30 Jesus was more specific and included qualifying terms, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
See, it’s not, “angels” in general, “cannot marry” but is specifically about, “angels in heaven,” “in the resurrection” ergo, the loyal ones. Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.
We’re also told, “Perhaps an even greater objection to the view that ‘sons of god’ means angels is that the judgment fell upon men alone, and it is the ‘sons of god’ who were the initiators of the wrong.”
That is too myopic an assertion since 1) “the judgment fell upon men” and humans, Angels, and Nephilim are all referred to as man/men, 2) “the judgment fell upon” Nephilim since they didn’t make it past the flood, and 3) “the judgment fell upon” Angels as per Jude and Peter, “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day” and, “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [Tartarus] and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.”
Leroy Birney reviews, “the interpretation that the ‘sons of god’ were angels must be considered untenable because it is not supported by II Peter or Jude, it is contrary to the Biblical view of the nature of angels, and the punishment for their crime fell upon men rather than upon angels” yet, as we have seen, what’s untenable are all of those objections.
He then moves on more directly to the Nephilim, quoting, “The nephilim were in the earth in those days and also after ·that the sons of god went in to daughters of mankind and they bore to them those the mighty ones which were of old, men of renown” and noting, “There is a difference of opinion over whether the nephilim were contemporary with the marriages or were the product of the marriages…they were already in the earth when these marriages took place….There is no suggestion of genetic connection between the nephilim and the marriages concerned.”
Yet, there ought not to be any difference since the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
We’re told that Kline wrote, “This reference to the conjugal act and to child-bearing finds justification only if he is describing the origin of the Nephilim-Gibborim” which is exactly what it’s describing.
It’s noted, “A disadvantage is that it leaves only 120 years for the nephilim to have gained such renown.” I’m unsure why a century plus two decades is, “only.” Gen 6:1’s timeline is, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” is when “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
When that was isn’t specified (could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children) but it is thereafter that, “Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’” We also don’t know how long a timespan traversed between, “When man began to multiply…” and, “Then…” but the issue is that if the flood took place at the 120 mark then, “man began to multiply…” only 120 years prior to that yet, the genealogies in Gen chaps 4-5 won’t allow for such short a timespan.
Thus, on point, Leroy Birney opines, “it is prob ably better to accept the interpretation that the nephilim were in the earth throughout this period of corruption, not just during the last 120 years.”
I would imagine that it’s due to a peculiar version that he was consulting that he wrote, “The word ‘nephilim’ occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33. In Numbers it is used of the Anakim, who were of great stature.”
Well, 1) that’s from an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s zero reason to believe them, 2) it’s Nephilim is used of Nephilim therein, “we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)” thus, the incoherent (illogical, ill-biological, and ill-theological) assertion was that Anakim are related to Nephilim—yet, not in real life, of course, and not in the LXX version which lacks reference to Anakim), and 3) “great stature” is attributed to Nephilim, “we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” but since that’s the only physical description we have of Nephilim then we’ve no reliable physical description of them and the only relevant thing we’re told about Anakim is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.