The Rise of Social Injustice in Genesis

 

Several months ago, I entered into a discussion on the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1. This passage is widely appreciated as significantly difficult to interpret, with suggestions that the “sons of God” either referring to fallen, angelic beings (see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Deut 32:8 [LXX; DSS]) or humans (Matt 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26). I argued for the latter without explicitly identifying who these humans were. One person in the discussion sent me an article by Thomas A. Keiser on the subject.[1]

Keiser argues that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 does refer to humans (in a specific manner) and not angelic beings. He makes his argument in two ways. First, he makes his point by arguing against the other competing options, including human possibilities such as “Sethites”, despotic rulers, and human judges.[2] Keiser notes that Genesis 6:1 starts with a reference to humanity. In response to the corruption in 6:1-2, God’s assessment and concern is directed exclusively to humanity and flesh (6:3, 5-7). The passage seems to be an enacted perversion of God's command in Genesis 1:28, which God corrects (9:1, 7). The exclusive focus of God’s judgment is carried out on flesh (vv. 7, 12-13).[3] Keiser concludes, “the fact that judgment was carried out on humanity—and that within a larger context of a series of judgments upon humanity—seems to require that those involved in the story be understood as human.”[4] Jesus' application of this story seems focused exclusively on humans (Matt 24:36-41; Luke 17:26-27), especially in light of Matthew 22:30. However, it's not completely certain who the "they" in these two passages specifically refer to.

Second, Keiser makes his argument by identifying the nature of the corruption in Genesis 6 that necessitated the flood. He argues that the term “sons of God” is a rhetorical, sarcastic allusion to Genesis 3 which fits into the larger narrative, meshing with the theme of humanity taking upon itself divine prerogatives.[5] While humanity sees their day as epitomized by their greatness, God sees it as nothing but corrupt. While God created humans to be his representative images in creation, humans corrupted themselves by attempting to be like God (Gen 1:26-27; 3:5, 22).

Keiser notes in Genesis 6:2-3 that the “sons of God” saw (ra'ah) the daughters of men were beautiful (towb) and took (laqach), and God responded. He sees the significance of their actions in relation to the previous narratives. In Genesis 1 (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), God saw (ra'ah) that his creation was good (towb). In Genesis 3:6, the woman saw (ra'ah) that the tree was good (towb) for food.[6] Keiser states that by “using the wording of seeing what was good, the narrator contrasts the sin of the garden with God’s evaluations in Gen 1. God, as the creator and ultimate authority, sees and evaluates. Humanity, created to represent God, tries to become like God by independently seeing and evaluating. And now, in Gen 6, by using the same words in the same combination, the narrator invokes that situation. God’s authoritative evaluation is contrasted with humanity’s self-serving evaluation.”[7]

In addition, Keiser further notes the similarity of the woman’s “taking” (3:6) of the fruit and that of the “sons of God” taking wives from the “daughters of men” (6:2).[8] He says that although “taking” (laqach) a wife or wives is commonly noted as describing the entering into marriage, a closer look at its earlier usage “within the context of Primeval History, raises an interesting alternative, and one which contributes to the picture painted of the days before the flood.[9] The first occurrence of laqach in the context of marriage is when Lamech takes two wives (Gen 4:19), disrupting the presumed divine intention of monogamy with that of male dominated polygamy.[10] Subsequent usages are Gen 11:29 (Abram and Nahor); 12:19 (Pharaoh and Sarah); 20:3 (Abimelech and Sarah); 21:21 (Hagar taking Ishmael a wife from Egypt); Gen 24:3-4, 7, 37-38,40,51 (servant taking a wife for Isaac) ; 26:34 (Esau taking Hittite wives). Keiser argues that these early uses appear in some type of negative context, raising the question as to whether the expression connotes something other than a neutral reference to marriage.[11] This “taking” is quite a different idea than the pre-Fall nature of marriage as “clinging” (dabaq) to become one, reminding one that a major consequence of the Fall was the disruption of the unity between man and woman, resulting in her subjection. Keiser proposes that the “expression actually connotes the arrogance of a male-dominated society in a manner which features the development of the curse of Eden (‘he will dominate you’)” (Gen 3:16).[12] Such an interpretation could explain Jesus’ emphasis on the characterization of the era of the flood as a time of “marrying and giving in marriage” (Matt 24:38; Luke 17:27). That is, it could be understood as “a time in which men took and gave wives as it pleased them, in contrast to God’s intention that men cling to their wives as their own flesh.”[13] If corruption entered creation by humans “seeing” and “taking” (Gen 3:6), then that corruption is said to continue through humanity “seeing” and “taking” (Gen 6:2), specifically in the man’s domination of women, reflecting the degeneration of the unity of man and woman. Indeed, the corruption of humanity results in the perversion of the divine intention for creation. God’s blessing to multiply and fill the earth is accomplished, but with wickedness (Gen 1:28; 4:1-2, 17-22; 5:1-32; 6:1).

To sum up Keiser’s central point, humans attempt to be like God by assuming the divine prerogatives. This attempt brings corruption upon the earth, resulting in the degeneration of the male-female unity into that of domination and subjection. Thus, God’s blessing to multiply and fill the earth is perverted and thus realized through wickedness. The description, “sons of God,” then, is satirical. It is an ironic reference to humanity’s desire to be like God (Gen 3:5). “It paints a sarcastic picture of those days as seen from humanity’s own vantage point.”[14] The dominant men are proud and arrogant, so the term “sons of God” contrasts with the more neutral expression, “daughters of men”, used for the subjugated women. Thus, the “sons of God” clarifies the basis for the judgment God brings upon the world.

               I think Keiser makes a convincing argument for the identity of the “sons of God” and the description of the Genesis 6 corruption. However, while I think the rhetorical allusion to Genesis 3 is correct, I think his argument for the term as satirical or sarcastic is not as strong as it can be. Allow me to strengthen his argument at this point.

First, a connection between humanity and the angelic “sons of God” is already present in the text. Certainly, it is generally agreed that humans were created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). The serpent in Eden does tempt the humans with the promise of becoming like God or like a god ([elohiym] Gen 3:5). The serpent’s temptation was at least partly truthful in that God declares “the humans have become like one of us” (Gen 3:22). While there have been several interpretive explanations for Yahweh’s use of plural pronouns in these passages (e.g., a reference to the Trinity, a holdover from polytheistic antiquity, majestic view, self-deliberation, plural of exhortation, conversation with the Spirit of God [see Gen 1:2], and a grammatical view). I agree with the many conservative Old Testament scholars who believe this is a reference to Yahweh’s heavenly court or council (Job 1:6; 2:1; 2 Kings 22:19; Isa 6; Dan 7; Rev 4-22).[15]

If Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 (“let us make Man in our image” and “the Man has become like one of us”) are references to Yahweh speaking with his angelic council, then God is telling the council that humanity has become like spirit-beings (or elohiym). Humans become like elohyim by taking the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The “knowledge of good and evil” is understood as an idiom referring to claims (in Genesis 3, specifically humanity’s claim) of self-determination (Gen 2:9; 17; 3:5, 22; Deut 1:39; Isa 7:15–16; 2 Sam 14:17; 19:35; 1 Kin 3:9). Thus, both Yahweh and his angelic council have self-determination.

If humans have become like spirit-beings, like both God and his council, then humanity is like the angelic “sons of God”. Therefore, there is already a connection between humanity and the angelic “sons of God” within the Primeval chapters of Genesis 1-11, specifically in humanity’s godlike but fallen assertion of self-determination. This connection conforms to Keiser’s observation that humanity takes upon itself the divine prerogatives of “seeing”, “evaluating”, and “taking” in Genesis 3 and 6. In both chapters, the attempt to become great (see Gen 6:4) leads only to evil and corruption.[16] Thus, Genesis 6:1-2 continues theme of humanity asserting autonomous free choice for themselves (mostly for evil) rejecting influence from God.

               Second, there is another example of a satirical or sarcastic depiction of humanity’s failed attempt at greatness in the Genesis 1-11 narrative. In Genesis 11, humanity attempts to foil God’s plan for them to populate the earth by becoming great, building a city, and constructing a tower to reach the heavens (v. 4). God again speaks to his presumed heavenly council (v. 7) and, with humorous language mocking prideful insignificance of humanity,[17] the narrator describes how God must come down out of heaven to actually see what they have built (v. 5). The result is that God successfully foils humanity’s plan, and they resume the divine intention of spreading over the earth (vv. 8-9). Therefore, just like as in Genesis 6, we see in chapter 11 a satirical depiction of humanity’s failed attempt at greatness, a corruption of God’s intent for humanity to fill the earth, a reference to the divine council of the angelic “sons of God”, and God intervening to stop humanity’s corruption. So, while I think Keiser’s argument is correct, the evidence is far stronger than he himself demonstrated.[18]

There is, though, another angle which stems from Keiser’s identification of the corruption in Genesis 6. Humanity’s attempt at greatness by appropriating the divine prerogatives of self-determination results in corruption, including the male-female unity of “clinging” degenerating into the male’s domination in the subjection of female, signified in “taking”, which is a cursed consequence of the Fall. An example of this male domination over subjected females includes Lamech taking two wives (Gen 4:19), disrupting the presumed divine intention of monogamy with that of male privileged polygamy. Also, in Genesis 6, prideful men, asserting godlike prerogatives, take women for themselves.[19] Again, this male-dominated aspect of corruption would explain Jesus’ emphasis on the characterization of the era of the flood as a time of “marrying and giving in marriage” when speaking of coming judgment (Matt 24:38; Luke 17:27). Such unequal, abusive domination is at obvious odds with Jesus’ support of monogamous male-female unity (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9). In this sense, while Jesus would presumably be against divorce for any wrong reason, his particular concern as recorded here in the Gospels, however, is the male use of divorce to dominate and abuse females as objectivized, throwaway items (Matt 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2-5, 10-12).[20]

This same idea is present in Deuteronomy 22:13-19, 24:1-4 and Malachi 2:14-16. It is the Pharisees’ reference of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and its prescriptive use of a certificate of divorce that Jesus is responding to in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.[21] Jesus notes God’s original intention for marriage in Genesis 1:21 and 2:24, establishing those as the governing texts for the principle involved. While the Mosaic Law was a temporary measure to temper the hardness of men’s hearts (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5), Jesus is reasserting the higher standard God originally intended for creation (Matt 5:31-32). Malachi 2:16 is best translated as God referring to a husband who hates and divorces his wife, rather than as God saying he hates divorce. The NIV translates the verse as “The man who hates and divorces his wife does violence to the one he should protect.” The CSB translate it as “If he hates and divorces his wife, he covers his garment with injustice.” In the Hebrew of verse 16, the word translated as “violence” in the NIV and “injustice” in the CSB is chamac. The word chamac is more specifically understood to refer to “injustice” or “social unrighteousness”. However, it is often an injustice which employs violence (Job 19:7; Psa 58:2; 72:14; 74:20-21; Prov 4:17-18; 10:6; 10:11; Ezek 45:9; Isa 59:6; Jer 20:8; Amos 3:10; Mic 6:12; Hab 1:3-4; Jon 3:8). In Psalm 73, the wicked (v. 3) are those who cover themselves in chamac (v. 6) and speak of `osheq or “oppression” (v. 8).[22]

               Coming back to the Flood narrative, of the two primary sources that make up Genesis 6-9, the Priestly source states that violence (chamac) is the form of the corruption necessitating the flood (6:11, 13; 9:6).[23] The Yahwist source is more general, mentioning only evil thoughts and hearts (6:5; 8:21). Genesis 9:6 suggests that “violent injustice” (chamac) is the corruption which troubles God. Interestingly, the corruption (shachath [Gen 6:11,12]) of humanity necessitates destruction (shachath [Gen 6:13, 17; 9:11, 15]) by God. The irony then is that while humanity is corrupt in their injustice to others, God is just to them in their destruction.[24] Therefore, the (redacted) corruption necessitating the flood then is some form of male domination of women and violent injustice. Are these specifically separate corruptions or are they related? At the conclusion of the Flood narrative, it reads:

“And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. “The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely, I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man. As for you, be fruitful and multiply; populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” (Genesis 9:1-7 NASB)

The “man” in these verses is 'adam indicating humanity in general, not males in particular. If, per Keiser, the male domination, exemplified in the taking of females, was a corrupted accomplishment in God’s intention for humanity to be fruitful and multiply,[25] then this narrative conclusion (a double, if not triple, reference to God’s procreation intention) strongly suggests that the violence and the male domination are connected to some extent.[26] If so, the unjust violence in Genesis 6 could refer either to violence against the women, against husbands, or both. In Genesis 12:14-15 (Yahwist source), we have an example indicating that men were violently taking women into harems. As with Genesis 6:2, the Egyptians and Pharaoh’s officials “saw” (ra'ah) the beauty of Sarah and took (laqach) her into the Pharaoh’s house. Abram has told Sarai to pretend to be his sister for fear the Egyptians will kill him in order to take her. It’s highly doubtful the taking of Sarah was necessarily voluntary on her part. The ruse, though, is a result of Abraham’s forethought that the seizure of Sarah with his accompanying death was a strong possibility. At the very least, he was half-right. Abraham performs a similar ruse with Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen 20:1-20, Elohist source), who takes (laqach) Sarah (vv. 2, 3), again for fear of death (v. 11).  And in Genesis 26:1-33 (Yahwist source), Isaac deceives the household of Abimelech, claiming Rebekah is his sister and not his wife, again fearing for his life (vv. 7, 9). When Abimelech learns the truth, he warns the people not to touch (naga‘) either Isaac or Rebekah on pain of death (v. 11; cp. Gen 3:3; 12:17; 20:6; 26:29).[27]

Significantly, a similar injustice leading to destruction (shachath) comes upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 13:10; 18:28, 31; 19:13, 14, 29).[28] The narrator states that the men of Sodom “were exceedingly wicked sinners against the Lord” (Gen 13:13). In Genesis 18:20-21, Yahweh tells Abraham that “the outcry [za`aq] concerning Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry [tsa`aqah], which has come to me; and if not, I will know.” When the men who are sent by Yahweh to rescue Lot and his family make known their purpose, they state, “For we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry [tsa`aqah] has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it” (Gen 19:13). The word “outcry” here is from the root za`aq and usually indicates the anguished cry of the oppressed victims, crying out for aid from injustice. The word tsa`aqah is used to describe the cries of the children Israel to God as they suffered under the slavery of Egypt (Exod 3:7, 9).[29] Indeed, there is a hint in Genesis 14:21 that the extreme wickedness of Sodom involved or included a form of slavery.[30] Also, Yahweh warns Israel that he will hear the cries of afflicted widows and orphans (Exod 22:22-23). He hears the cry of his people when they are persecuted by the Philistines (1 Sam 9:16). God hears the cry of the poor and the afflicted (Job 34:28). For the prophet Isaiah, an “outcry” is the exact opposite of what God considers to be justice and righteousness: “He looked for justice, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold an outcry” (Isa 5:7).[31] This puts the sin of Sodom within the social context of one people oppressing another (see also Jer 20:8, Hab 1:2; Job 19:7). As Nahum Sarna puts it, “The ‘outcry’ of Sodom, then, applies, above all, heinous moral and social corruption, an arrogant disregard of elementary human rights, a cynical insensitivity to the suffering of others.”[32]

In the scene where Yahweh reveals his plans to destroy Sodom (Gen 18:16-33), he questions (rhetorically?) whether he should reveal his plans to Abraham. In doing so, Yahweh notes the calling of Abraham to be a great nation (Gen 12:1-3). This initial calling immediately follows the narrative of humanity’s descent into corruption (Gen 3-11). This placement further suggests that Yahweh’s purpose in calling Abraham is to restore creation from the corruption that resulted from chapters 3-11,[33] particularly humanity’s perversion of God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 13:16; 15:5; 17:2-6, 20; 22:17; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4; Exod 1:7; 32:13; Lev 26:9). Yahweh specifically notes that he chose Abraham so that he and his children would do righteousness and justice (Gen 18:19). When Abraham haggles with Yahweh over the citizens of Sodom, he mentions justice (Gen 18:25) and the saving of the righteous among the wicked (Gen 18:23-26, 28). This further supports the idea that the exceeding wickedness of Sodom is a form of injustice.[34]

Sodom and Gomorrah became examples of God’s destruction upon oppressive people (including his own) and a warning that such continued, rebellious, unrepentant behavior would lead to permanent destruction (Deut 29:23; 32:32; Jer 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Isa 1:9-10; 3:9; Ezek 16:46-56; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9; 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 1:7). Jesus himself used Sodom for the judgment coming to Israel (Matt 10:15; 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; 17:29). It is only in Jude 1:7 that explicitly states that Sodom was punished for the sexual nature of their sins: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them … they in the same way indulged in gross immorality [ekporneuō] and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”[35]

However, it is in Genesis 19 that the reader gets a clearer example of Sodom’s “exceeding wickedness” (ra` in 13:13). The men of Sodom surround Lot’s house asking for the visitors who Yahweh had sent to rescue Lot’s family. “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sex with them.” (v. 5) Lot replies by imploring them, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly (ra`)” and then offers his own daughters up as substitutes to the men (see Lev 19:29). The men of Sodom scoff at Lot and tell him that they will do to him even worse (ra`a`) than what they will do to his two guests. If the Biblical writer was using this story to exemplify the social oppression of Sodom that led to its destruction, then the example of sin and wickedness he chose to use was its aggressive homosexual behavior which culminates in homosexual gang rape. A shocking wickedness and the worse sort of sexual offense for a culture such as Israel’s which saw both homosexual behavior (Lev 18:22; 20:13) and rape (Deut 22:13-29) as contrary to God’s will for humanity. This was the very antithesis of the hospitality and justice shown by Abraham in the previous chapter.[36]

In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, there are prohibitions against homosexual acts, labeling them “abominations” (tow`ebah [18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13]). The Septuagint translates these acts as arsenos koitēn. From this, Paul gets the noun arsenokoitēs generally translated as “homosexual” (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). There are also narrative denunciations of male cult prostitutes (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). Elsewhere, there are references to the Canaanites (which would have included Sodom) practicing homosexuality, defiling the land, thus resulting in expulsion from it (Lev 18:24-28; 20:23; Deut 18:9; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 16:3; 21:2). From such references, Yahweh warns the Israelites that they could face similar expulsion if they defiled the land in like ways.[37]

Going back to Jude 1:7, the writer saw Sodom’s “punishment” (díkē) as justice for its sexual sins, similar to the corruption-destruction (shachath) in the Flood narrative (Gen 6:13, 17; 9:11, 15) mentioned above. Laying even more stress on the two linked subjects than its counterpart in Jude, 2 Peter 2 mentions Sodom in a section connecting sexual sins (vv. 2, 7, 10, 13-15, 18) with injustice (5, 7-9, 15, 21).[38] A similar connection is made by Paul in Romans 9:29-30. It is in the Pauline writings where homosexual acts, referenced separate from the specific historical and traditional case of Sodom, are deemed an injustice (Rom 1:18, 26-27, 29; 2:1-3, 5-6, 8, 11-13; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-11). Therefore, in both the Flood narrative and in the Sodom story, we have societal destruction as just punishment for societal injustice. But this isn’t the only similarities between the Flood narrative and that of Sodom. Both stories begin in a similar way: In Genesis 6:2, the “sons of God” see (ra'ah) that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose (bachar). In Genesis 13:10-11, Lot sees (ra'ah) the land where Sodom is located and chooses (bachar) it for himself. Again, this recalls Genesis 3:16 where the woman sees (ra'ah) the fruit of the tree in the garden (gan). Indeed, in 13:10, the writer notes the land is reminiscent of the garden (gan) of the Lord. If seeing, evaluating, and taking are evidence of humanity’s assuming the prerogatives of God, it’s noteworthy that while Lot takes the initiative in lifting up his eyes to see (13:10), it is only at the Lord’s command that Abraham lifts up his eyes to see the land that God promised (13:14).[39]

In other similarities, in both stories, women are oppressed and objectified (6:2; 19:8). In both, domination may take the forms of harems (6:2; 12:19; 20:3) and slavery (14:21). In both, there are references of men doing to women what is good (towb) in their eyes (6:2; 19:8), “daughters of man” are taken (laqach) by men (6:2; 19:14), and there is sexual misconduct between men (9:22; 19:4-5). Also, there is the corruption of the command to be fruitful and multiply and of marriage as man and woman coming together as one flesh (6:2; 9:22; 19:4-5, 8, 32-38). There are references to violence (6:11, 13; 9:6; 19:9). In both stories, there is the use of similar phrases of the “way or manner on the earth”.[40] In both, the Lord “rains” (matar) down his judgment, first with water, then with fire (7:4; 19:24). Again, in both, there are cataclysmic acts of divine destruction (shachath)[41] upon two exceedingly wicked (ra') communities.[42] The societal destruction results in the possible elimination of all life in the land (6:13; 19:31). In both stories, either Yahweh or his angels shut a door to separate the righteous from the wicked (7:16; 19:10). Only the righteous and their families are spared because God “remembers” the righteous one (8:1; 19:29). There is a hand stretched out to provide protection (8:9; 19:10). Both stories conclude with the drunkenness and sexual immorality of those who had been saved, specifically sexual incest between father and child (9:21-23; 19:32-36).[43] Ham violates the drunken Noah (see Lev 18:6-17), while the two daughters violate Lot (see Lev 20:11-21). In addition, both stories are linked together in the New Testament, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha.[44]

               It is evident from these similarities that the Yahwist source shaped the Flood and Sodom narratives to connect and recall one another. Here we have two parallel stories (in a pattern stemming from the fall of humanity in Gen 3) in which humanity assumes the prerogatives of God by seeing, evaluating, and taking, and corrupts the divine command to fruitfully fill the land by the marriage of man and woman cleaving together as one flesh. The result is the social injustices of domination and violence. Men do what is good in their own eyes and take, oppress, and objectify women. Men commit sexual misconduct with each other, and children commit drunken, sexual misconduct with their fathers. The result is a just punishment upon the wicked in which Yahweh brings cataclysmic acts of destruction upon the evil, unjust societies. Again, only the righteous and their families are spared because God “remembers” the righteous one.

As both literary and thematic parallel stories flowing from the actions in 3:6 and the disruption of the “one flesh” of 2:24 with the introduction of patriarchy in 3:16, the Yahwist has portrayed the rise of violent, social injustice leading to the domination of women, polygamy, incest, rape, and homosexuality, even as systemic in terms of slavery, harems, patriarchy, and collective acts of homosexual behavior.[45]

               We see a similar connection of the male domination of the female and the story of Sodom in the story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19. The author of Judges shaped the story of the Levite and his concubine to echo that of Sodom in Genesis 19. The Levite and his concubine stopover in the Israelite city of Gibeah (of the tribe of Benjamin) for the night and struggle to find lodging among its people. Finally finding room and board for the night with an old man, the subsequent meal is interrupted when men of the city surround the house asking for the Levite, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have sex with him” (Judg 19:22; see Gen 19:5) The old man goes out to the men of the city and says to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly (ra`)” (Judg 19:23; see Gen 19:7). He then offers both his virgin daughter and the concubine as substitutes. Incensed, the men of the city rape and humiliate the concubine all night long until she is left for dead. This incident leads to a minor civil war within Israel between all the other tribes and that of Benjamin who refuses to give up the men of Gibeah for punishment. The tribe of Benjamin was almost completely annihilated.

               There are numerous other connections between the two stories indicating a deliberate arrangement of this Judges material to conform to that of the Sodom story. Both passages mention “spending the night” (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:15, 17, 20) in the “open square” (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:11, 13, 15, 20; 20:4). In both passages, the owner of a home urge others not to spend the night in the open square (Gen 19:2; Judg 19:20). In both, the “men of the city” “surround the house” (Gen 19:4; Judg 19:22). They call out to bring out the man/men so they could have relations with him/them (Gen 19:5; Judg 19:22). The owners of the house try to dissuade the mob, citing hospitality (Gen 19:7-8; Judg 19:24). Both owners offer the mob two women instead (Gen 19:8; Judg 19:24). In Genesis 19, Lot offers his two daughters, noting their virginity (v. 8). In Judges 19, the man offers his daughter, noting her virginity, and the concubine (v. 24). Both passages the owners tell the mob, “Please let me bring them out to you, and do to them what is good in your eyes” (Gen 19:8; Judg 19:24). Both verses recall the “seeing” and evaluating of what is “good” from Genesis 3:6 and 6:2. In both Genesis 19:9 and Judges 19:25, the men of city reject the offer. At this point, the correlated passages diverge. In Genesis 19:11, the angels stop men of the city with blindness. In Judges 19:25, the Levite brings out his concubine who is abused and left for dead.

Yet, there are other thematic semblances. Both stories show the male domination of females. In both, there is the objectification, if not the ownership, of other human individuals – (possibly) slavery in Sodom and concubinage in Judges 19. Needless to say, in both stories, individuals are treated as merely sex objects. Both contain the threats of violent injustice. While the possibility of such violence is avoided in Sodom due to divine intervention, it is actualized in Judges. Both stories conclude in a corporate destruction (Gen 19:24-29; Judg 20:48; 21:6).

               Therefore, we have the following scenario running through the Genesis story. God creates a world in which humanity is told to be fruitful and multiply, to fill and subdue the land. This is to be accomplished thru the cleaving together of man and woman and thru the tending of the ground. When humanity eats the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good (towb) and Evil (ra'), they assume the prerogatives of God and other spiritual beings (elohiym) in self-determination, particularly to make decisions of evaluations. This establishes a pattern of seeing, evaluating, and taking. Humanity sees something which they evaluate to be good, then takes actions in ways that are good in their own eyes. But such actions are wicked, because every intent of their hearts is inclined towards evil. This pattern corrupts the God’s intention for the filling and subduing of the land. God charges humans to care for creation (Gen 1:28; 2:5, 15; 4:2-3), but the result is a cursed, defiled land (Gen 3:17-19; 4:10-14; 6:5-7; 19:24-25). God charges men and women to cleave together as one (Gen 2:23-24), but the result is the male domination of the female (Gen 3:16; 4:19; 19:8).[46]

The Yahwist writer then has conceptualized the rise of social injustice (a reason for which Yahweh called Abraham) as humanity assuming the prerogatives of spiritual beings and then both corrupting and frustrating the divine intention for humanity to fill and subdue creation - an idea common to the three primary sources. This corruption and frustration take the forms of objectification, exploitation, and oppression – chiefly of other humans. Humans are seen as oppressed, exploited, and objectified – treated as things to be used with violence, slavery, and objects of sex, particularly women. Violence is depicted as against both men and women in terms of blatant murder (4:8; 27:41-42; 37:20, 26), unjust revenge (4:23-24; 34:25-26), and general killing or its threats (4:14-15; 34:30; 40:19, 22; 41:13; 49:6, 23), often against a husband so the wife can be sexually exploited (12:12; 20:11; 26:7, 11). There is general slavery (9:25-27; 12:16; 14:15-16, 21; 15:13-16; 16:1-6, 8-9; 17:12, 13, 23, 27; 20:14; 21:10, 25; 24:2, 5, 9-10, 17, 34-35, 52-53, 59, 61, 65-66; 26:15; 26:25, 32; 27:37; 29:24, 29; 30: 3-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 18, 43; 32:5, 10, 16, 22; 33:1-2, 6, 25-26; 35:8; 37:27-28, 36; 39:1-4; 40:20; 41:10, 12, 37-38; 42:10-13; 43:18; 44:9-10, 17-19, 33; 45:16; 46:34; 47:25; 49:15; 50:2, 7, 18), but also, in relation to sexual objectification, harems (6:2; 12:15; 20:2-3) and concubinage (22:24; 25:6; 35:22; 36:12). The sexual objectification and exploitation are understood as rejections of the cleaving together as one flesh intended by God at creation. This rejection takes the oppressive and objectified forms of patriarchy (4:19; 6:2; 11:29; 12:12, 19; 14:16; 16:2; 19:8, 14; 20:2-3; 21:20; 22:24; 24:4, 7, 37-40, 48, 51, 59, 61, 67; 25:1, 20; 26:7, 10; 29:18, 21, 23-24, 26; 31:31, 43, 50; 34:4-21, 29; 35:22; 38:2, 6, 9, 24, 26; 41:45) which approaches that of slavery,[47] polygamy (4:19, 23; 29:27-28; 36:2, 6; 37:2), incest (9:22; 19:32-36), homosexuality (19:5, 9), rape (19:8, 32-36; 26:10-11; 29:23; 30:3-4, 9; 34:2), prostitution (34:31; 38:15-16, 21-22, 24), and sexual harassment (39:7-18).

Yahweh is seen as one who is just (16:5; 18:25; 31:53) responds to injustice with justice (3:14-24; 4:11-15; 15:14; 6:3, 13, 17; 9:4-15; 11:6-9; 12:17; 13:10; 15:16; 18:17-32; 19:13-14, 29; 20:3-7; 30:6; 38:7, 10; 50:20), though it is tempered with patience and mercy (4:11-15; 15:16; 18:17-32; 20:3-7). At the same time, Yahweh shows particular compassion for women, particularly those suffering under injustice (16:10-11; 17:17; 29:31; 30:6, 17, 20, 22).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Thomas A. Keiser, “The ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis 6:1-4: A Rhetorical Characterization” (WTJ 80 [2018]: 103-120).

[2] Keiser 105-114.

[3] Ibid., 119-120.

[4] Ibid., 120. While acknowledging that God specifically labels the offenders in 6:3 as flesh (basar) and that the phrase “sons of God” typically refers to angels, Bruce K. Waltke splits the difference and argues that the terms designates “demon-possessed despots” in this context (Genesis: A Commentary [Zondervan, 2001], 117).

[5] Keiser 115.

[6] Both Genesis 3 and Genesis 6:1-7 are from the Yahwist source.

[7] Keiser 116.

[8] Note also instances where God “takes” (laqach) (Gen 2:15, 21-23; 3:19, 23; 5:24).

[9] Keiser 118.

[10] The J-source doesn’t portray Lamech in positive terms. Apart from the apparent establishment of polygamy, Lamech administers excessive justice beyond was is equitable – which is itself unjust (Gen 4:23-24). While it is Yahweh himself who establishes the sevenfold penalty in order to prevent lethal vengeance upon Cain (Gen 4:15), Lamech assumes the divine prerogative of administering disproportionate retaliation, noting in his apparent boast that he is exceeding the precedent established with Cain. Lamech cites the vengeance, not the grace. This is an escalation of violence following Cain’s actions. It’s possible that a reference to weaponry is intended in the mention of forging implements of bronze and iron by Lamech’s son, Tubal-cain (Gen 4:22). In the P-source, violence precipitates the Flood (Gen 6:11, 13; 9:5-7). Interestingly in 9:5-7, the justice God establishes following the Flood conforms to the “eye for eye” justice (lex talionis) found in the Torah statutes (Exod 21:23-27; Lev 24:17–22; Deut 19:16-21) which restricts compensation for harm to prevent excessive punishment like that practiced and advocated by Lamech. God’s justification for this (equitable) justice is because humans were made in the image of God (Gen 9:6). This little section is bookended with the command to multiply (9:1, 7). As we’ll see below, the corruption which humanity brings upon the earth necessitates its destruction as an eye-for-eye act of justice. Yet, God’s covenantal promise with humanity and the rest of living creation (signified by the rainbow) to not destroy life on earth with a flood (which presumes that God will be faithful to his promise even if humanity deserves destruction) is grace (Gen 9:9-18). Neither the grace given to Cain nor the escalation of Lamech are the standard, worldly justice universally recognized and practiced by all functioning societies. The root principle of both justice and accompanying law is to provide equitable retribution. Even versions of lèse-majesté are noted exceptions to the common standard of justice and to working laws that prescribe punishment and compensation. This ethic of justice finds its fullest expression and most organized principle in government. Government maintains order, first, by protecting a societal order from external threats and, second, by maintaining order within that society, but both through violence and the threat of violence. Max Weber famously formulated that government has a regional monopoly on violence. This is a core concept of modern public law going back to Jean Bodin and the Enlightenment political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who later wrote that the sovereign must be invested with the exclusive right to commit violence, the alternative to that being violence, bellum omnium contra omnes. This is the defining conception of the state and what its purpose is on a fundamental level. Indeed, in the Western world, there is near universal consensus that if any person or entity in society is to have such power, then it should be the exclusive right of the state. However, there is another ethic of justice which is found predominately in the New Testament and is spelled out in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, particularly Matthew 5:38-5:42. Its antecedents, though, are found in the Old Testament. You can see much earlier in the Old Testament that God is going to establish his Kingdom through a Messiah (Isa 11) and that a time and ethic of peace will follow where the wolf will lie down with the lamb (verse 6) and people will no longer need their swords (Isa 2:4; Joel 3:10, Mic 4:3). It will be a time of freedom (Isa 61:1) and forgiveness (Jer 31:34). This is an ethic of forgiveness, non-violence, and non-retribution, and it flows from the character of God himself, as noted in the case of Cain. Jesus taught an ethic where abuse, persecution, and violence are to be dealt with by love, forgiveness, and non-violence. Again, one can see this prominently in the Sermon on the Mount, but it is the ethic Jesus took all the way to the cross where he rejected violence (Matt 26: 52-54; Luke 22:51) and proclaimed forgiveness (Luke 23:34). The power exhibited and unleashed on the cross is that is that of self-giving love and forgiveness. This is the superior ethic over that of “eye for an eye”. While the kingdoms of this world run on force, the Kingdom of God runs on forgiveness. While the governments of this world run through violence, the government of God runs through non-violence. One is about death, the other is about life. Therefore, in Romans 12, after urging the church to not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewing of their minds (referencing back to his argument in 1:18-32 and the mental depravity that results from idolatry [see Psa 115:5-8; Zech 10:2, and his similar argument in Eph 4:17-25)], Paul tells them to exhort, to give, to love, rejoice, persevere, and to bless their enemies, not paying back evil with revenge, but allowing God to administer wrathful vengeance (quoting Deut 32:35). Paul is encouraging the Romans to adopt the turn-the-other-cheek ethic, leaving wrathful punishment to God. “Never pay back evil for evil” (12:17). “Do not be overcome by evil. but overcome evil with good.” (12:21). Paul continues his thinking into chapter 13 where he identifies government authorities as a means by which God executes his wrathful punishment. In 13:9 he returns to the subject of Christians pursuing love. Paul’s argument is clear: while God has set Powers in place to punish evil with evil, Christians are not to engage in such justice, but overcome evil with good. While “eye for eye” justice has its temporary place to maintain order and limit the escalated justice of Lamech, Christians are to pursue the justice of Christ.

[11] Keiser 117.

[12] Ibid., 118.

[13] Ibid., 118-119.

[14] Ibid., 117.

[15] Further evidence for this divine council may appear in Genesis 18-19. There Yahweh appears before Abraham with two angels (19:1). Sometimes Yahweh speaks as an individual (18:10, 13-15), and other times the three speak as a group (18:9). Yahweh says he will go down to Sodom (v. 21), but it’s the two angels that are shown doing so (18:22; 19:1). Yahweh going down to Sodom to see what humans are doing (18:21) recalls Genesis 11:7 (see below). However, while the dialogue in 11:7 is a plurality, Yahweh speaks in the singular in 18:21. While it’s possible that the two angels may oscillate between a singularity and plurality (19:17), it’s also possible that, in light of 19:24-25, 29 (also Gen 13:10), the singular person speaking in 19:18-22, refers to Yahweh. If so, it’s possible that after Yahweh had spoken to Abraham one on one, he left to join the two angels at Sodom (Gen 18:33)

[16] In addition, with reference to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good (towb) and Evil (ra`), while humanity may see that something is “good” (towb) (Gen 3:6; 6:2), they nevertheless act evil (ra`) (Gen 6:5) towards it in response. This is the corruption that humanity brings to God’s good creation.

[17] The actual designation for humanity here in verse 5 is “sons of men”, perhaps a further belittling of humanity following the ironic designation of 6:2.

[18] If Keiser’s idea proves to be incorrect, the second-best option identifies the “sons of God” as human kings (see M. G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” WTJ 24 (1962): 187-204. Either way, the usurpation of divine prerogatives remains, and thus doesn’t affect what follows in this article.

[19] Commentators who have identified the “sons of God” as specifically referring to either nobles, princes, aristocrats, or kings, have understood the corruption as the setting up of royal harems (U. Cassuto, “The Episode of the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, trans. I. Abrahams [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973], 18; M.G. Kline, “Divine Kingship and the Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4,” WTJ 24 [1962]:187-204; Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001], 116).

[20] We see further examples of God’s concern for unloved women and divorced women in Genesis 21:10-19 and 29:31-33.

[21] It’s quite possible that the Pharisees brought up the subject of marriage and divorce to trap Jesus in comments that could be construed as criticism of tetrarch Herod Antipas (Matt 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 3:19-20; 9:7-9).

[22] The Hebrew word `osheq (“oppression” or “extortion”) is particularly associated with injury towards the poor (Eccl 5:8; Ezek 22:7, 29; Jer 22:17; Isaiah 59:13).

[23] Yahwist source (2:4b-25; 3:1-24; 4:1-26; 6:1-8; 7:1-5, 7, 10, 12, 16b-20, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6, 8-12, 13b, 20-22; 9:18-27; 10: 8-19, 21, 24-30; 11:1-9; 12:1-4a, 6-20; 13:1-5, 7-11a, 12b-18; 14:1-24; 15:1-21; 16:1-2, 4-14; 18:1-33; 19:1-28, 30-38; 21:1- 2a, 33; 22:11-15, 20-24; 24:1-67; 25:11b, 18; 26:1-33; 27:1-45; 28:10-11a, 13-16, 19; 29:1-35; 30:1a, 4a, 24b-43; 31:3, 17-18a, 49; 32:4-13; 34:1-31; 35:21-22; 36:31-43; 37:2b, 3b, 5-11, 19-20, 23; 25b-27, 28b, 31-35; 38 1-30; 39:1-23; 42:1-4, 8-20, 26-34, 38; 43:1-13, 15-17, 24-34; 44:1-34; 45:1-28; 46:5b, 28-34; 47:1-6, 11-27a, 29-31; 49:1-27; 50:1-11, 14, 22).

Priestly source (1:1-31; 2:1-4a; 6:9-22; 7:8-9, 11, 13-16a, 21, 24; 8:1-2a, 3b-5, 7, 13a, 14-19; 9:1-17; 10:1-7, 20, 22-23, 31-32; 11:27b-31; 12:4b-5; 13:6, 11b-12a; 16:3, 15-16; 17:1-27; 19:29; 21:2b-5; 23:1-20; 25:7-11a, 12-17, 20; 26:34-35; 27:47; 28:1-9; 31:18b; 35: 9-15, 23-29; 36:1-30; 37:1-2a; 41: 45b-46a; 46:6-27; 47:27b-28; 48:3-6; 49:29-33; 50:12-13).

Elohist source (20:1-18; 21:6-32, 34; 22:1-10, 16-19; 25:1-4; 28:11b-12, 17-18, 20-22; 30:1b-3, 4b-24a; 31:1-2, 4-16, 19-48, 50-55; 32:1-3, 14-33; 33:1-20; 35:1-8, 16-20; 37:3a, 4, 12-18, 21-22, 24, 25a, 28a, 29, 30, 36; 40:1-23; 41:1-45a, 46b-57; 42:5-7, 21-25, 35-37; 43:14, 18-23; 46:1-5a; 47:7-10; 48:1-2, 8-22; 50: 15-21, 23-26).

[24] A form of this justice is stated in the lex talionis of Genesis 9:6.

[25] While the theme of being fruitful, multiplying, filling and populating the land is predominantly found in P, it does appear in both J and E. Fruitful (parah) appears in J at 49:22 and in E at 41:52. Multiply (rabah) appears in J at 16:10, 26:4, 24:28:3; 35:11 and in E at 22:17. The similar term rabab (to become many) appears in J at 6:1, and rebabah (a multitude) appears in J at 24:60. The word naphats (to popular or scatter) appears in J at 9:19. Similarly, in J, humanity attempts to thwart the divine command to fill the earth. In 11:4, humanity builds Babel so to not be scattered (puwts) over the land. Yahweh thwarts this rebellion in 11:8-9 (see also 10:18). Also, there is mention of the family of Abraham having a multitude of descendants in J at 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 24:60; 28:14; 30:30 and in E at 48:19.

[26] Nahum Sarna notes, “The story of the Flood … is of profound importance as a landmark in the history of religion. The idea that human sinfulness finds its expression in the state of society, and that God holds men and society accountable for their misdeeds, is revolutionary in the ancient world (Understanding Genesis [New York: Schocken Books, 1972], 53).

[27] See 2 Samuel 11:4 for another example of a woman being taken (eventually with violence).

[28] Ezekiel 16:47 also refers Sodom’s corruption as shachath.

[29] A similar word, tsa`aq, is use for Abel’s blood crying from the ground (Gen 4:10).

[30] Outside of Genesis, there appears to be no uniform tradition about the specific nature of the wickedness. Isaiah references a lack of justice (3:9-12) and Jeremiah cites moral and ethical laxity (23:14). Ezekiel speaks of a disregard of the needy (16:49) but does so by comparing Jerusalem to a woman engaging in sexual immorality (vv. 15-17, 22, 25-41).

[31] “Righteousness” (tsadaq) and its cognates are terms expressing both a person’s standing before God and how people treat each other. Righteousness is frequently linked with judgment (mishpat) as a near synonym or explanation (Psa 89:14; Prov 21:3). Both implicitly and explicitly, the Torah writers and Old Testament prophets state that righteousness and justice have both vertical (with God) and horizontal (with others) dimensions (Lev 19; Deut 16; Amos 5:6-7, 14-15, 24; Micah 6:8). Our righteous/just standing before God relates to our righteous/just standing before others. We see in the Flood story that God brings justice down upon humanity when people behave unjustly towards others, because humanity was created in the image of god (Gen 9:5-6).

[32] Sarna, 145.

[33] In Genesis 11:4, humanity attempts to make a name for themselves. In 12:2, Yahweh promises to make Abraham’s name great.

[34] The problem with the traditional interpretation of the story of Sodom’s destruction is that it reduces homosexual behavior to merely a sin of sexual abnormality. The biblical teaching goes far deeper, seeing homosexual behavior as a power of societal injustice and oppression that blinds and enslaves its practitioners. While all sins blind and oppress, some do so in a far greater and deeper manner than others. Sexual sins fall into this greater category. Such sins can warp the mind and soul in profound ways, both of those who willing engage in it and those who have it thrust upon them. See, for example, the psychological results of those who have been sexually abused. In this way, homosexual behavior exemplifies the fallen nature of humanity enslaved through deceit and sin to idolatrous powers (Rom 1:18-32).

[35] Second Peter, either using Jude as a source or drawing on the same tradition, likewise references the sexual nature of Sodom’s ungodliness (2:2, 7, 10). In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha there are references identifying the wickedness of Sodom with sexual sin, particularly homosexuality (3 Maccabees 2:5; The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 3:14; 8:3; 12:9; Jubilees 16:5-6; 20:6; 2 Esdras 2:8; 7:36, 42-45; Wisdom of Solomon 10:6–7; Jubilees 16:5-6; 20:5-7).

[36] 1 Clement 10-12 mentions Lot, Abraham, and Rahab as examples of hospitality. Both Lot and Rahab are linked to God’s judgment of pagan cities, and their salvation from those cities is justified by their treatment of “messengers”. See James 2:21-25 for a connection between Abraham and Rahab and an identification of the Joshua 2 spies as “messengers” (aggelos). Rahab’s hospitality is also mentioned in Hebrews 11:31.

[37] While the focus of the present article is on the rise of social injustice as directed towards humanity, it is evident that defilement and corruption of land, earth, and creation is the significant other half of the social unrighteousness afflicting the world.

[38] Again, in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, there a references to the injustice of Sodom, specifically identified with homosexual acts (The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 8:4; 2 Esdras 2:8; 7:36, 42-45; Wisdom of Solomon 10:6–7; 3 Maccabees 2:4-5).

[39] Elsewhere, the phrase to “lift the eyes” is a description of worship, both for God (Ps 121:1; 123:1-2) and for idols (Ezek 18:6, 12, 15; 33:25). Of interest to this article, in Roman 1:23, Paul uses the phrase ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος, a quote from Psalm 106:20 which is referring to the "golden calf" of Exodus. The use of eikonos is odd because it adds a second word with an identical meaning in this context, and which is not found in Psalm 106:20. Eikonos can be used for idols. Paul uses the word eight times in Romans, corresponding to the ways the word is used in the early parts of LXX Genesis. Also, the three animals Paul mentions in verse 23 occur in the same order in Genesis. There are also possibly implicit allusions to Adam and Eve in Romans 1: the image of God (v. 23); thinking wise, but foolish (v. 22; see Gen 3:6). Paul will mention Adam explicitly in 5:12-14. If Paul is referencing the Genesis 3 fall of humanity in Romans 1, then he sees the results of the fall in terms of idolatry, sexual depravity, and wickedness. Such an interpretation would align with the contention of this article.

[40] In Genesis 6:12, the phrase is rendered, “God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (darkow ha-erets).” In 19:31, it is rendered, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come into us after the manner of the earth (ka-ḏereḵ kal-ha-erets).” (Gen 19:31)

[41] Genesis 6:13, 17; 9:11, 15; 13:10; 18:28, 31-32; 19:13, 14, 29.

[42] Genesis 6:5; 8:21; 13:13.

[43] For further references concerning those who become drunk and naked see Lamentations 4:21 and Habakkuk 2:15.

[44] Luke 17:26-29; 2 Pet 2:5-7; Jubilees 20:5; 3 Maccabees 2:4-5; The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 8:3.

[45] In today’s terminology, the Yahwist sees “complementarianism” as a social injustice on the same level as homosexual acts.

[46] The bitter irony is that the woman initiated the see-evaluate-take scenario which is then used by men as a means of unjust oppression against all women.

[47] It has been a habit of complementarians to attempt to dissuade Christians from tolerating egalitarianism by warning them that it’s a slippery slope from accepting female pastors to accepting homosexual behavior. In truth, as far as the Yahwist sees it, complementarianism or patriarchy is a form of societal injustice just as sinful and unnatural to his design as that of homosexual behavior.