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.
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.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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.
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.
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). 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.” 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.”
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).
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.
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,
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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,
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.
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).
Significantly, a similar injustice
leading to destruction (shachath) comes upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen
13:10; 18:28, 31; 19:13, 14, 29).
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). Indeed, there is a hint in Genesis
14:21 that the extreme wickedness of Sodom involved or included a form of
slavery. 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).
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.”
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,
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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).
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).
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”.
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)
upon two exceedingly wicked (ra') communities.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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,
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).
Thomas A. Keiser, “The ‘Sons of God’ in Genesis
6:1-4: A Rhetorical Characterization” (WTJ 80 [2018]: 103-120).
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)
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).
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).
“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).
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.
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)
Genesis 6:5; 8:21; 13:13.
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.
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.
"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
