Why do we doubt?

O’ majestic Lord,

How wondrous are thy ways,

how wondrous are thy ways?

Every movement of thy providence,

            beckons our endless praise.

Wonders on earth beneath,

signs in heaven above;

Each to thine people thou bequeath,

            as tokens of thy love.

The sparrows enjoy thy care,

            but thine for us cannot compare;

For unto us thy Son was given,

            and unto death him thou did not spare.

Not even the angels receive his help,

            but only do they of the woman’s seed;

to the cross went he for Abraham’s whelp,

            in the cross do they find all that they may need.

Thy presence is real in the bread and cup;

            thou sends us out, going with us always.

On the wings of eagles thou lifts us up,

the promise thou made is nearness all of our days.

           

Why, then, do we doubt?

            And why, then, do we fear?

What cares and worries should count,

            to a people with a God so near?

Give us more grace and forgive us our shame,

            for sin we oft can’t see thine hand.

What more could we need than the pow’r of thy Name,

            when following thee, we walk through this pilgrim’s land?

The Use of Parallelisms and Figures in Psalm 35

I. The uses and purposes of parallelisms in Psalm 35

A. Parallelism defined

Parallelism in Hebrew poetry “is that phenomenon whereby two or more successive poetic lines dynamically strengthen, reinforce, and develop each other’s thought.  As a kind of emphatic additional thought, the follow-up lines further define, specify, expand, intensify, or contrast the first.”[1]  Berlin adds this insightful expansion.

Parallelism focuses the message on itself but its vision is binocular.  Like human vision it superimposes two slightly different views of the same object and from their convergence it produces a sense of depth.[2]

1. Parallelism of intensification

                        a                                             b

α.         Contend, O LORD,                with those who contend with me;

a                                              b          

β.         fight [O LORD]                      against those who fight against me!” (v 1)[3]

a. Intensification defined

A parallelism of intensification…occurs when the second stich of a couplet restates the first in a more pointed, extreme, or forceful way…we might way the second develops the first by saying, ‘Not only that but more so.’”[4]  It is one of four variations of the (α < β) distich pattern.

b. Author’s use of intensification in 35:1

In the first stich (α), David uses the term “contend,” first as a verb (rı̂yb) with reference to Yahweh’s advocacy and second (β) as a noun (yârı̂yb), speaking of the “contender” who is striving against the psalmist.  This term carries connotations of a legal setting, which is alluded to again in v 11 (cf. Ps 43:1).  With this, David is seeking Yahweh’s advocacy; or, in NT terms, David is seeking Yahweh as his paraklētos (used of Jesus’ session ministry in 1 Jn 2:1, and the Holy Spirit in Jn 14:16; 15:26, and 16:7; cf. Is 49:25).  Thus, the α stich is a judicial petition, asking Yahweh to step into the situation David is facing and vindicate him; “Vindicate me, O LORD, my God” (v 24a).  David is seeking Yahweh’s judgment in the sense of judicial acquittal before God’s bar of righteousness, and that against the wicked, who are seeking David doom.

The couplet is intensified by the verb “fight” (lâcham) in the second stich, which parallels “contend” in the first.  By invoking Yahweh to “fight,” David has escalated the petition from a legal plea to one of warfare.  The term “fight” means to do battle, make war, etc.  Here, then, David’s anxiety is expressed by the rapid shift of the petition, from a court-like setting to one of the battlefield, where Yahweh will utterly destroy David’s enemies. 

I believe the historical background for this psalm is 1 Sam 24, the climax of Saul’s rabid hunt after David’s life.  Specifically, 1 Sam 24:15 has David finishing his speech to Saul with these words, “May the LORD therefore be judge and give sentence between me and you, and see to it and plead (rı̂yb) my cause and deliver me from your hand” (on “deliver me,” shâphaṭ, cf. Ps 35:24).    

2. Parallelism of specification

            α          Malicious witnesses rise up;

            β          they ask me of things that I do not know.  (v 11)

a. Specification defined

“In the parallelism of specification, each succeeding stich makes more specific what the opening stich states in general.  In other words, the movement is from general to specific.”[5]  There are various types of specification, e.g., spatial or geographical.  The example I have chosen represents the explanatory type. 

b. The author’s use of specification in 35:11

In Ps 35:11 the first stich (α) tells what the malicious witnesses did, they did “rise up” against David; the second stich (β) tells how they did it, by means of spurious, groundless interrogation.  This is one of many places where David is demonstrating his own relative “righteousness” in the circumstances (v 27a).  Whatever the charges of these violent accusers were, David had no consciousness of any wrong done by him, especially with respect to the particular allegations.  Thus, the second stich specifically explains the generality of the first in qualifying the “maliciousness” as bringing perfectly baseless allegations against David.  

In 1 Sam 24:9 we read, “And David said to Saul, ‘Why do you listen to the words of men who say, 'Behold, David seeks your harm'?”  This is reflected in both Ps 35:11 and 15.  This appears to be another solid allusion to the historical context of Saul’s pursuing David, especially the climax in 1 Sam 24. 

II. The uses and purposes of figures in Psalm 35

Let me say at once that parallelism, the verse form in which virtually all biblical poetry is written, is not the most essential thing that a reader needs to know about biblical poetry.  Much more crucial to the reading of biblical poetry is the ability to identify and interpret the devises of poetic language.

—Leland Ryken[6]

A. Simile  

I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother:

I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother. (v. 14 KJV, italics added)

1. Simile defined

“The use of simile and metaphor is the most pervasive element of biblical poetry.  The essential feature of both is comparison.  A simile draws correspondence between two things by using the explicit formula ‘like’ or ‘as’…They both secure an effect on one level and then transfer that meaning to another level,” which “work(s) by indirection.”[7]

2. The author’s use of simile in 35:14

David highlights his pathos in the situation as emphatically as possible.  Few could deny that they bereave the calamity or death of their own kin more than they do that of others.  In this distich, David is prompting the reader to vicariously transfer their deepest feelings associated with  losing a close friend or family member to the same for a hotly-pursuing enemy, so that the word picture painfully illustrates David’s extension of true loving kindness for his enemies.  In this, David is incarnating the heart of his Greater Son’s teaching on the topic of loving one’s enemies (cf. Matt 5:43—48). 

Although not likely an allusion, 2 Sam 1:11ff provides a wonderful illustration of this situation. 

Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him.  And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.  (vv 11—12)

In connection with the first section above (I.A.1, intensification), the parallelism is worth noting.  We also see in this distich the parallelism of intensification.  That is, David heightens the intensity of the pathos in the second stich by mention the grief of losing a mother.  Friends and brothers may be many in number and sort, but every person has only one mother.  Some crass family dysfunction notwithstanding, the is no closer earthly bond than that between mother and child (cf. Gen 24:67, “So Isaac was comforted after the death of his mother.”). 

B. Chiastic figure

Bullinger discerns an interesting chiastic structure with an extended alteration that frames the entire psalm.[8]  He proposes the following. 

A   a | vv 1—3. Appeal for help.

         b | vv 4—8, Imprecation.

            c | vv 9, 10, Praise.

               B | v 11, Evildoers.  Words.

                   C | v 12, Their evil for good.

                       D | v 13, His good for evil.

                       D | v 14, His good for evil.

                   C | v 15, Their evil for good.

               B | v 16, Evildoers.  Words.

A   a | vv 17, 18, Appeal for help.

        b | vv 19—26, Deprecation. 

           c | vv 27, 28, Praise. 

---

[1] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard contributors, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.  Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tennessee (2004), p. 284.

[2] Ibid.  

[3] All Scripture is taken from the English Standard Version.

[4] Klein, et al., p. 295, op cit.

[5] Ibid., p. 293.

[6] How to Read the Bible as Literature.  Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1984), p. 90. 

[7] Ibid., pp. 91—92. 

[8] The Companion Bible.  Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, Michigan (1990), p. 751.

Gen. 1:26--28, Dominion and Subdue

The terms dominion and subdue are used to describe man’s divinely ordained relationship to his sphere of sovereignty, the natural order.  Neither of these terms signifies merely extraneous commands imposed on man, but rather each represents a part of the moral fabric of man’s being, as made in the image of God.  Both the dominion over and subjection of the created order to man’s lordship are, nonetheless, moral responsibilities. 

            The terms dominion (Heb. râdâh; Gk. archō) and subdue (Heb. kâbash) are, as they stand, morally neutral; conceptually, they can carry connotations which are either good or evil.  Today, in terms of conventional usage, both ideas ring of power-grabs and/or oppressive despotism.  Biblically, the terms can have this negative sense.  For instance, Torah warns the priests against this sort of rogue “dominion” (Lev 25:43, 46, 53).  And later, in the prophetic material, this type of tyrannical exercise by the priests invokes Yahweh’s wrath (e.g., Jer 5:31; Eze 34:4).  The negative aspect of dominion is the result of failing to exercise this capacity in a way that honors and reflects God’s glorious dominion over all. 

            The positive sense, which is clearly meant here in Gen 1:26—28, would mean to lay hold of creation to the glory of God, to cultivate and subdue ever-expanding territories of the earth in a way that honors God and is consistent with his “very good” design and purpose for the creation, not least man.  Originally, in God’s goodness toward his vice-regents, he gave man a “land” that would be in service to him and to his rule over it as he sought to be in service to God.  In the fall, however, man rebelled against the Yahweh’s dominion and Lordship over him, therefore, man’s judgment was to find his own domain in complete rebellion against his efforts to “subdue” and “have dominion” over it. 

            Since the fall, man would find himself in a life and death struggle in his attempt to subdue and exercise dominion.  Additionally, because every person since the fall is naturally disposed to rebellion, God’s people find themselves struggling not only with the natural order but also with other peoples and nations.  The land given to Adam anticipated the land promised to Abraham, which his offspring was to inherit.  Likewise, the thorns and thistles of the curse manifested in the wicked nations then occupying the promised land.     

            Talk of subduing the land is heard in the wandering years (Num 32:22, 29), and in some measure is accomplished as a result of the conquest under Joshua (Jos 18:1).  However, it isn’t until David that the borders of the land are secure and “all the nations” are subdued (2 Sam 8:11).  David, being a bloody man of war (1 Chron 28:3), through his warring, brought “peace on every side (of the land)” and subdued the land before Yahweh and the people (1 Chron 22:18). 

Subduing is a necessary precondition of dominion.  Subduing is cultivating through various means the creation/culture bringing it into a state of submission and of stability.  Not until this work is done can dominion be established, exercised, and maintained.  David was able to pass on the subdued land, the kingdom, to his son, Solomon.  This allowed Solomon to exercise dominion throughout and extending beyond the borders of the promised land (1 Kgs 4:24; cf. Ps 72:8). 

Psalms 72 points beyond David’s son Solomon to a greater son, who is Messiah.  Jesus is that son who is of David’s loins and exacts the obedience of the nation (Rom 1:1—5), he is the Archō (Rom 15:12).  Jesus is the One who has subdued the enemies of God and now exercises dominion over the land promised to Abraham, i.e., the whole world (Rom 4:13).

It is often thought that Jesus’ signs and wonders he worked in his earthly ministry were tokens, even proofs, of his deity.  However, these events could better be understood as Jesus fulfilling the covenant of works that the first Adam failed to do, subduing the earth (e.g., stilling the sea, feeding the four/five thousand) and exercising dominion (e.g., exorcisms).  Looking at Jesus and his wonder-working ministry is to see true humanity as it was and is supposed to be.

WHO WERE THE SONS OF GOD?

INTRODUCTION AND INTERPRETATIONS FROM ANTIQUITY

The phrase “sons of God,” in Gen 6:2 and 4, has been subject to a variety of interpretations.  Once fringe views are excluded, we are left with three possibilities.  The phrase “sons of God” refer to either (1) fallen angels, or (2) Sethites, or (3) rulers/nobles.  The earliest interpretations were almost unanimously view (1), fallen angels. 

            The Second Jewish Commonwealth apocryphal work 1 Enoch, dating around the second century B.C., provides one of the earliest commentaries on Gen 6:1—4, presenting the sons of God as angels (see 1 Enoch 6 – 11).  The primitive popularity of the angel view is also reflected in some of the manuscripts of the Septuagint (e.g., Alexandrinus), which translates the Hebrew term בני  האלהים (bene elohim) with ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ (aggeloi tou theou), “angels of God.”  The angel view is further testified to by a number of other Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic works, such as, Jubilees 4:15, the Testament of Reuben 5:6,  2 Baruch 56:12—16, 2 Enoch 18:4, and the Genesis Apocryphon 2:1.  Both Philo (Gig. 2:6) and Josephus (Antiq. 1.3.1) appeared to follow this view (1) as well.  In addition to these early Jewish interpretations are a number of early Church fathers who likewise viewed the sons of God as angels.  Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactanitus, Irenaeus, Cyprian and Ambrose are names that the angel view may boast as authorities.[1] Finally, the two central NT texts that appear to support angel view must not be ignored (i.e., 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6).  However, these passages will be adequately interacted with in the sections below in parts comparing modern perspectives.

            The following table is illustrative of the historical and statistical dominance of angel view over that of the Sethite in early Jewish and Christian interpretation.[2]

Date	Writer	Angels	Sethites	Reference
c.250 BC	Various	X		Septuagint, Gen. 6:3
165-64 BC	Unknown	X		1 Enoch 6-19; 86-88; 106: 13-15, 17
150 BC	Unknown	X		Jubilees 4:15, 22; 5:1
100 BC	Unknown	X		Damascus Document (Qumran) 2:16-19
20 BC-50 AD	Philo of Alexandria	X		Giants 6-7
37-100 AD	Josephus	X		Antiquities, Book 1.3.1 (73)
c.70	Pseudo-Philo		X	Biblical Antiquities 3:1-2
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		Genesis Apocryphon 2:1
Late 1st Cent.	Unknown	X		2 Baruch 56:10-14
c.100-c.165	Justin Martyr	X		1 Apology 5; 2 Apology
c.115-202	Irenaeus of Lyons	X		Demonstration 18; Heresies 16.2
c.130	Rabbi Akiba		X	[Greek translation of OT]
130-160	Rabbi Simean b. Yohai		X	Genesis Rabbah 26:5-7
130-160	Rabbi Jose		X	Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a
2nd Cent.	Athenagoras	X		A Plea for the Christians, 24.
Late 2nd Cent.	Symmachus		X	[Greek translation of OT]
c. 150-215	Clement of Alexandria	X		Miscellanies 5.1.10
c.160-c.225	Tertullian	X		Idolatry 9; Veiling 7; Women, 1.2
c. 160-240	Julius Africanus		X	Chronology, Fragment 2
240-320	Lactantius	X		Divine Institutes 2.15
263-339	Eusebius of Caesarea	X		Eusebius, Preparation, 5.5
306-373	Ephrem the Syrian		X	Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1
340-397	Ambrose of Milan	X		Noah and the Ark 4.8
c.345-420	Jerome	X		Hebrew, 6.4
374-407	John Chrysostom		X	Homily on Genesis, 22.6-8
363-420	Sulpicius Severus	X		History, 1.2
354-430	Augustine of Hippo*	X	X?	City of God 15:22-23

KEY: X indicates agreement with this view

            Although views (1) and (2) dominated in antiquity, view (3) was not without a voice.  “Genesis Rabbah 26:8 (fifth-sixth century A.D.) cites R. Simeon b. Yohai (A.D. 130—160) as insisting on the interpretation ‘sons of nobles’ and placing a curse on anyone who promulgated the ‘angels’ theory.  By the time of the medieval rabbis, this interpretation had become entrenched.  Rashi, Ramban and Ibn Exra all favored identifying the sons of God as rulers or judges.”[3]  

            Among critical scholarship today, all three views identified above have their heavy-hitting protagonists.  View (3), the Sethite view, however, has consensus among conservative scholars. “The most common view of orthodox interpreters has been that the ‘sons of God’ were the men of the godly Sethite lineage.”[4] We will now turn to three modern scholars, each supporting one or the other of the respective views on the sons of God.

SONS OF GOD AS SETHITES: GEERHARDUS VOS

The old Princeton student and then professor of biblical theology, Geerhardus Vos, was a proponent of (2), the Sethite view.[5]  Vos is particularly sensitive to two motifs that appear in the fore of the antediluvian epoch of revelation.  First, he notes that the antediluvian context of Genesis is not primarily concerned with the sphere of redemptive progress, but with the development of the race in general, which he recognizes is ultimately significant for the development of the plan of redemption.  Second, Vos points out that the revelation on the whole bears negative rather than positive connotations.[6]  These observations, with others below, play a role in him settling on the Sethite view.

            Vos further notes that the narrative develops in three stages. 

It first describes the rapid development of sin in the line of Cain.  In connection with this it describes the working of common grace in the gift of invention for the advance of civilization in the sphere of nature.  It shows further that these gifts of grace were abused by the Cainites and made subservient to the progress of evil in the world.  We have here a story of rapid degeneration, so guided by God as to bring out the inherent tendency of sin to lead to ruin, and its power to corrupt and debase whatever of good might still develop…The details of the description are evidently chosen with a view to emphasize the result.[7]

With this backcloth in mind, the narrative goes on to contrast the wickedness of the Cainite to the progress of the godly line of Seth (Gen 4:25—5:32).  With respect to the Sethites, nothing is said of secular or civil progress; rather, it is the continuity of redemption that is stressed.  “The two kinds of progress appear distributed over the two lines of the Cainites and the Sethites.”[8]

            Vos couches the situation in the context as he interpreted it, saying, “The character of the period in this respect finds clearest expression in what is said…about the commingling of the Cainites and Sethites through intermarriage.  The latter allowed themselves to become assimilated to the wickedness of the former.”[9]

            Because he so carefully recreated the context of the unit, Vos does not believe that the Sethite view needs much technical defense; “[it] alone would seem to fit into the construction of the period to serve the purpose of showing the necessary outcome of sin, when left to work itself out freely.  If the angel theory be accepted, this will tend to obscure the idea aimed at.”[10]  To inject a source ab extra, i.e., fallen angels, would interrupt the development of human sin that Moses so carefully created.  Vos recognizes that the evidence for the angel view from Jude 6, admitting that it does give the angel view some force, yet it is far from conclusive.

            Furthermore, in connection with the terms ‘sons of God’ and ‘daughters of men,’ Vos makes the point that in Hebrew idiom sometimes a genus is set over against a part of that genus as though they were mutually exclusive.  He cites Ps 73:5 and Jer 32:20 as explicit cases of this idiom.  Both classes mentioned are naturally speaking, mere men; so, the sons of God are men, but sons of God besides, thus marking their distinguished status.  These are the Sethites, for Vos.  Finally, he mentions that in 6:3, 5—7 we find the divine evaluation of things and pronouncement of pending judgment on the antediluvian race of man and his sphere of sovereignty; angels are not mentioned at all.

SONS OF GOD AS ANGELS: HENRY MORRIS

Henry Morris represents a resurgence among orthodox interpreters, which is increasingly adopting the angel view, and not without good exegetical reason.[11]  For Morris, taking the term bene elohim to refer to angels is the “obvious meaning.”[12]  That the term is used explicitly for angels elsewhere in the OT is crucial for Morris.  He cites, of course, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7.  The similar language of Dan 3:25 (bar elohim) refers to either angels or a theophany.  Finally, in Ps 29:1 and 89:6 the variation of the term (bene elim) clearly means angels.  Morris also references presidents in both Jewish and Christian historical theology, dominated by the angel view, in support of his thesis. 

            Liberalistic interpreters are quick to dismiss the angel view on the ground that it smacks of supernaturalism, something that is presuppositionally incredible for them.  Some, however, will accept a mythologized variation of the angel view.[13]  Morris does not concern himself with treating these objections; rather, he treats the primary rejection of conservatives who discard the angel view on the basis of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew. 

            The primary objection raised against the angel view is Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection in his debate with the Sadducees in Matt 22:23—33.  Therein, Jesus makes the remark that “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (NIV).  This, it is said, would appear to preclude the angel view of the sons of God, which presents them as having “took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”  Therefore, if in the resurrection people will not marry, and this makes them similar to the angels in heaven, then angels must not marry, or so the reasoning goes.  Morris, however, does not find this reasoning persuasive at all; he deals at length with its implications. 

            Morris raises the point that Jesus’ remark is not equivalent to saying that angels are sexless.  Instead, in Scripture, angels are given masculine pronouns and are described as having the appearance of men.  Moreover, in Jesus’ teaching the angels are qualified as the angels “in heaven” (Matt 22:30).  What is true for angels “in heaven” may very well not be true of fallen angels, Morris contends.[14]  A count against the Sethite view, according to Morris, is the fact that not all the Sethites were godly, which is made obvious by their demise in the deluge.[15] 

              For Morris, the toughest issue that the angel view must wrestle with is the nature of the union of women and angels and the prospect of their offspring.  “Admittedly, however, there is a grave difficulty in the idea of angel-human sexual unions, not only the question of whether such a thing is possible, but even more in the theologically paradoxical and grotesque nature of the progeny of such unions.”[16]  Morris answers the difficulty by postulating that angels were using the bodies of possessed men.  “Thus, the ‘sons of God’ controlled not only the men whose bodies they had acquired for their own exploitation, but also the women they took to themselves in this way, and then all the children they bore.”[17]

SONS OF GOD AS NOBLES/RULERS: JOHN WALTON

Walton begins his investigation respecting the identity of the sons of God with the cautious reminder that “This issue is one of the thorniest in Old Testament interpretation.”[18]  Walton admits that the case for the angel view has tremendous lexical strength, especially based on a synchronic analysis of the phrase.  He warns, however, that confident conclusions drawn from such an analysis depends in good measure on the phrase or term having a broad lexical base throughout Scripture.  It is this dependence on a broad lexical base that Walton calls “the weak link in the armor of the ‘angels’ view.” [19]  Despite the term sons of God having a limited lexical base, Walton offers three lines of reasoning for why it cannot be maintained.

            (1) Cohabitation between angels and humans has no immediately obvious connection with the purposes of Genesis; (2) an angelic intrusion is considered out of place in the sequence of episodes recounting the advance of human sin;[20] and (3) the mythological tone is at odds with life in the real world as we know it, though in the end our interest in the world as the Israelites knew it.[21]  Nevertheless, Walton has the honesty to admit that the burden of proof still lies with either the Sethite or rules view to build a convincing lexical case for the respective view, one that makes sense in the literary, cultural, and theological context.  Walton says, “I believe such a case can be built for a variation of the ‘rulers’ view.”[22]

            Walton assumes that the ‘sons of God’ were oppressive despotic kings, rulers, or nobles, whose sin—an primary source of oppression—was the practice of the ancient, ever-despised practice of the divine right of the first night.  “In this practice, the local authority (whether king, governor, or lord of the manor) imposes his will in his people by demanding and exercising the right to spend the first night with any woman who is being married…The wording of Genesis 6:2, that ‘the sons of God…married any of them they chose,’ would be an apt description of this practice.”[23]

            Walton argues that accepting this view allows for a very natural progression of the account of sin in the narrative:  individuals (Adam and Eve) à family (Cain) à society leaders (sons of God) à everyone (Flood).[24] His argument for this view, however, is one largely dependent on ancient Near Eastern background material, which helps provide a window into the worldview and culture of the original audience.  The concept of the divine descent of kings and nobility in the ancient Near East was copious, a point which strengthens the ruler view.  Walton cites numerous examples of this.  “From Sumerian times (e.g., Eannatum, Gudea), through Old Babylonian (e.g., Hammurabi), into Middle Assyrian (e.g., Tukulti-Ninurta) and Neo-Assyrian (e.g., Ashubanipal), it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage.”[25]  Walton leans most heavily on parallels between parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 6.[26]

            Birney, who also deftly defends the ruler view, offers this summary of the passage.  “The ‘daughters of men’ were women in general, the ‘sons of God’ were famous mighty rulers…the sin was polygamy, and the judgment was that the breath of life would be taken away from man in 120 years.”[27]

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

I personally find the ruler view interesting and challenging, although far from convincing, due to its crass dependency on reconstructive background parallels and inferences.  Furthermore, the scanty background parallels for the practice of right of first night, and utter lack the practice elsewhere treated in Scripture, the ruler view has a deep sense of anachronism for me.[28]

            In the unity and context of the rest of Torah (even into Joshua and Judges) the Sethite view holds pride of place in my estimation.  The original audience was saved out of the house of Egyptian bondage and “set-apart” as Yahweh’s special people.  As such, the whole of Torah commands and galvanizes a perpetual antithesis between Israel and the nations, especially those in the land to which they were headed, the Canaanites.  I believe, therefore, that the Sethite view provides the best framework for reading Gen 6 as the original audience would (or should) have. Genesis 6 was another illustration of the war between the “seeds,” set into motion in 3:15. 

            My settlement on the Sethite view is, however, an uncomfortable one.  When confronted with the pertinent latter-NT texts, and the accompanying background material concomitant with them, it seems most likely that the NT authors did themselves espouse the angel view, which was part and parcel of their literary, cultural, and theological context.  This presupposition would have therefore been back of their inspired writing, and thus is an authoritative interpretation for Gen 6.  I find myself hard-pressed between the angel and the Sethite views, praying that further study and illumination will help me to resolve the dilemma and create a cognitive rest on the issue.   

---

[1] This paragraph is greatly indebted for its content to John Walton’s entry, “Sons of God, daughters of men.” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.  T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, editors (Downers Grove, IL: IVP.  2003), 794.

[2]  Robert I. Bradshaw, “Creationism & the Early Church,” chapter 5. http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm (Accessed on November 18, 2010).  *Exception must be taken with Bradshaw’s reading of Augustine’s view, presenting him as subscribing to view (1), angels.  Henry Morris understands Augustine’s position as (2), Sethites (The Genesis Record [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.  1976], 166), as does this present writer’s reading of Augustine, see City of God XV:23.  Also see John Walton, who calls Augustine’s view a variation of the Sethite view, “Sons of God, daughters of men,” DOT:P, 794.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13, no. 1, pp. 43—52 (Winter 1970), 45.

[5] Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.  1948), 45—51.

[6] Ibid. 45.

[7] Ibid. 45—6. Italics added.

[8] Ibid. 46.

[9] Ibid. 48.

[10] Ibid.

[11] The Genesis Record, see 164—70.  Also, Walton cites Westermann, who said that we can basically consider the debate “closed.”  Westermann adds, “The number of voices supporting the view that they [sons of God] are human has diminished,” in “Sons of God, daughters of men,”  DOT:P, 795.

[12] The Genesis Record, 166.

[13] Ibid. 168.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid. 168—9.

[17] Ibid. 169.

[18] Genesis in The NIV Application Commentary.  Terry Muck, editor (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.  2001), 291. 

[19] Ibid. 292.

[20] Note the similarity of this line of criticism to that of Vos, see fn. 7.

[21] Genesis, 292.

[22] Ibid. Op. cit.

[23] Ibid. 293.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid. 294.

[26] These parallels are presented on pp. 294—95.

[27] Leroy Birney, “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1—4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. (Winter: 1976): 43—52.  52.

[28] Walton actually appeals to the movie Braveheart in a footnote, see Genesis, 293 fn. 2.