6:1-3 - 1When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3Then the Lord said, "My Spirit will not contend with man for ever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."T
These verses serve as an introduction to the narrative that follows. V1 summarizes what has already been said in the previous chapters, that the mandate to humans to "be fruitful and increase in number" (1:28) was being fulfilled. All the previous chapters, however, have concentrated on the multiplication of "sons,' while daughters were only mentioned in passing.1 V1 now brings them into focus: "daughters were born to them" too.
V2 now complicates the story: "the sons of God" found them beautiful and married whomever they chose. The question of who these "sons of God" are has perplexed scholars and commentators for ages. Four different interpretations have been proposed, all of them with strengths and weaknesses. (For a summary of these proposals, see the excursus ☰.)
Before we can make a final decision on who—or what—the sons of God may be, it is vital to notice that v2 contains three important Hebrew words that, together, hold the key to understanding where the story is going and the solution to the question of the "sons of God." We begin with the last word, laqach, 'take.' This word is missing in the text of the NIV quoted above because the latter interprets the text here rather than translates it. The NKJ is the most literal here: "the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." To "take a woman" is the vernacular OT way of saying to "marry." There is nothing in the language of the text to suggest otherwise than that these were proper marriages.2 There is, therefore, no need to suggest that the verb 'took' implies impunity as some commentators and many preachers make it out to be.3 Now if these were 'proper' marriages, then the traditional reading of the the church on this passage that humans were the unwilling, even oppressed, victims of the "sons of God" needs to be reviewed. It is not just possible but, as we will soon see, very likely that here it was not only the "sons of God" who were reaching out for the "daughters of man," but that the "daughters of man" were also giving assent—or at least their acquiescence—to their commingling. There is, e.g., no suggestion of coercion or rape in the passage. "The passage," observes Umberto Cassuto, "contains not a single word . . . alluding to rape or adultery . . ."4 And if the "daughters of man" did give their consent then their fathers would also be implicated since
if there was no rape or seduction, their approval to these matches would have been required. . . The obvious avoidance of any terms suggesting lack of consent makes the girls and their parents culpable, the more so when the previous chapter has demonstrated that mankind was breeding very successfully on its own.5
Contrary to popular readings which fault only the "sons of God" for what follows, humans were therefore whole hog conspirators in the event. But what is the significance of the event, and why would humans willing consort with the "sons of God"?
Now, this verb laqach, together with 'saw' (ra') and 'beautiful' (ki tobot), clearly intends us to recall the act of sin which led to Adam's and Eve's expulsion from Eden: ". . . the woman saw (ra') that the fruit of the tree was good (ki tob) . . . and she took (laqach) . . ." (Gen 3:6).6 This suggests that the intermarriages between the "sons of God" and the complicit "daughters of man" (and the involvement of the latter's equally complicit parents) belonged to the same category of future-shaping event as Eve's reaching out for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The bait that got Eve to give way to the serpent's temptation was "you will be like God" (Gen 3:5). Just as marriage offered many self-hating natives to become "one of them" by marrying into the families of their colonial masters, so marriage with the "sons of God" opened a new route for those humans who, like Eve, thought "equality with God" a worthwhile thing to attain. As Eve sought then to breach the barrier between human and divine, so now a new attempt to infringe that barrier is set in motion. But if Eve only got past the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but was presciently barred by Yahweh from the tree of life (3:22), here the marriages were a done thing.7 This reading is further strengthened by Yahweh's response reported in the next verse.
V3 opens with Yahweh speaking to Himself as He looks at what has happened. That His response is not one of pleasure is certain; there is a palpable sense of weariness, verging on exhaustion, with what humans can come up with. What is not clear are the precise meanings of a number of items in the verse; the simplicity of the English translation hides the fact that almost everything about the verse is difficult. The verse may be divided into two parts: the first deals with what change He would institute with regards to human nature ("my spirit shall not contend with man forever, for he is mortal") and the second what he would do with regards to their earthly existence ("his days will be a hundred and twenty years"). Let us look at each part in turn.
The Spirit of God has already been mentioned in 1:2, where it hovered over the face of the waters in the process of creation. Here "my spirit" should probably be understood as that which He endowed on humans that made them different from the animals and enabled humans to enter into communion with Him. The next verb—yadon in Hebrew and translated "contend" (NIV), "abide" (ESV, NRS, RSV) or "strive" (KJV, NKJ, NASB)—is a hapax legomenon. We, therefore, can only guess at its meaning: hence the differences in translations. Comparison with words of the same root in cognate languages strongly support 'remain' (i.e., abide) as the most likely meaning.8 The qualification 'forever' suggests that Yahweh sees that the barrier between divine and human has indeed been breached; there is now the very real possibility of humans "living forever" through their marriage with the "sons of God" which Eve failed to achieve. The reason for Yahweh's decision is "for he is mortal." The conjunction 'for' is again a source of debate for scholars. Normally a simple ki would have sufficed. Here, however, we have in the Hebrew a conjunction that is actually a compound of three different words. Suffice to say that, despite all the debate, its intention is clear though it seems more emphatic than what the simple ki would do.9 That "man is mortal," literally, basar 'flesh' is the reason for Yahweh's decision. Living forever is simply not what God intended for humans to do; he is flesh. Seeking immortality—equality with God at least in one main feature of divinity—is the great and constant longing of the human race. It is the arrogant refusal to accept that dust we are and to dust we shall return. It is the Great Sin. Everything that we have said since the third paragraph of this commentary suggests strong that "the sons of God" were pretanatural beings, rogue angels tempted by the beauty of human young women who, equally willingly, to seek sexual union together.
The second part of this verse seems simple enough at first sight: Yahweh has decided that, henceforth, humans shall be limited to a lifespan of 120 years. There are no difficult words to quibble over. And yet such a reading is also problematic because, henceforth, Noah lived to be 950 (9:28), Shem 600 (11:10-11), Arphaxad 438 (11:12-13). As late as the exodus, Amran lived 137 years (Exo 6:20) while his son, Aaron, died at the age of 123 (Num 33:39), though Moses just made 120 (Deut 34:7).10 Two different approaches have been proposed in response to this apparent inconsistency:
1) The 120 years is indeed the limit of longevity now imposed on humanity. The existence of these exceptions represent a mitigated implementation, similar to the suspension of immediate death on the first human pair when God had warned them that "the day you eat of" the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "you will die" (Gen 2:17, NRS).11
2) The 120 years refers rather to a period of respite, of grace, before Yahweh's judgment (in the form of the flood) would fall. It is not an unreasonable reading even if not the most natural way of reading the verse on its own.
But, of course, the two are not mutually exclusive. If Yahweh set a 120 years as the period of respite before the judgment in the form of the flood, then no one born hence would live longer than 120. Those postdiluvians who live beyond that were exceptions of God's grace. We should also remember that, with the command to Noah and his sons to "be fruitful and . . . multiply" (9:1 & 7), the postdiluvian family represents a new beginning. While God kept the general limit of 120 years as the lifespan of humans henceforth He was not obliged to keep a decision He made regarding the old past epoch.
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2020