On Angels and Giants (Chapter 2) - Interpretations Through the Ages (A. The Nature of the Relationship)

...continued. 

CHAPTER 2

Interpretations Through the Ages

A. The Nature of the Relationship

In ancient times, when the Adamic race was still in its infancy, the “sons of God,” impressed by the beauty of the “daughters of men,” apparently entered into permanent marital unions with the latter. This is evident because the expression “to take a wife for oneself” (laqaḥ ishah) does not signify a temporary sexual relationship but rather the enduring relationship of a lawful marriage (Genesis 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2–3; 24:4).

Foreign commentators on this passage are in agreement with the above interpretation, among them John Skinner in his famous commentary on Genesis included in the International Critical Commentary (p. 142), and C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. I, p. 131, where, among other things, they state that: “This fact alone is sufficient in itself to exclude the idea that angels are meant.” (1)

In the case of the abduction or rape of women (Judges 21:23), the expression would have been “nasa ishah” (“to carry off a woman”). Although not explicitly stated in the text, it is nevertheless implied that this union resulted in the sinfulness of mankind and in the extraordinary intervention of God in the affairs of the world (v. 3).

The principal subjects connected with the above episode, namely the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” and the “giants,” will be examined in the following sections.

Notes

1. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, p. 294; Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary, vol. I, p. 329; Claus Westermann, A Commentary on Genesis, p. 368.

Continued

 

On Angels and Giants (Chapter 1) - Genesis 6:1–4 and the Problems of Its Interpretation

...continued.

 

CHAPTER 1

 

Genesis 6:1–4 and the Problems of Its Interpretation

 

Within this particular passage, a tradition has been preserved concerning the union of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” as well as the origin of the “giants.”

The present study will attempt to answer the questions that arise from an investigation of this subject. Are the “sons of God” distinguished individuals, “good and virtuous” men, descendants of the line of Seth, “spiritual beings” (angels), or something else?

Are the “daughters of men” descendants of the line of Cain, mortal and sinful women in general, or something else?

And are the “giants” mythological beings, demigod heroes of antiquity, or renowned men?

All of these questions will be examined in what follows on the basis of the tradition preserved in Genesis 6:1–4, within the framework of primeval history, and through a detailed analysis of the text—especially the Hebrew text—as well as an investigation of the philological problems presented by the passage.

On Angels and Giants (Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

As we begin the present study, we feel the need to say a few things concerning Holy Scripture.

The more one studies Scripture, together with its interpretations and translations, the more one realizes that it contains passages that are difficult to interpret, enigmatic, and literally mysterious—veritable stumbling blocks for interpreters. This is so because Scripture is at once simple and profound, easy and difficult. It resembles the sea, which has a surface upon which one may swim with ease, but also depths into which only skilled divers are able to descend. Superficial and ignorant people, such as most heretics happen to be, are the only ones who imagine that Scripture is an easy book and that anyone is capable of interpreting it.

There is a passage in Scripture, Galatians 3:20, for which more than four hundred interpretations have been proposed. What the Apostle Peter said concerning Paul's epistles—that they contain “some things hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16)—applies more generally to Holy Scripture as a whole. The Fathers likewise acknowledge that Scripture contains difficult passages and that it is an abyss of questions. For this reason, while the Fathers are in agreement concerning the doctrines of the faith, they differ, to a greater or lesser degree, in their interpretation of many passages. Their interpretations are pious, though not all are equally successful. The Fathers—and especially Saint John Chrysostom, the prince of interpreters—correctly interpreted the greater part of Scripture. They left a portion uninterpreted, however, so that lovers of God's sacred text might continue to enjoy the labor of inquiry and the discovery of divine meanings until the Second Coming. Holy Scripture is an inexhaustible mine.

Should We Believe in Luck? Are There Unlucky and Lucky People?

Should We Believe in Luck? Are There Unlucky and Lucky People?

By Archimandrite Athanagoras Karamantzanes

For Christianity and our Orthodox Church, luck does not exist. Nowhere in Holy Scripture or in the entire body of Patristic literature is belief in luck taught. The word luck expresses nothing other than our ignorance of the causes of the phenomena or events of life. There is no goddess and no blind force called luck (τύχη). Whatever appears to us as accidental or coincidental always springs from a deeper cause.

When we say that an event is due to luck, it is merely a manner of speaking, and we mean nothing more than that its cause was unknown to us — not that luck is the cause of things. That is why someone once said: “Luck is perhaps the pseudonym of God, when He does not wish to put His signature.”

But then what does exist? The Providence of our Almighty, All-wise, and All-good God, which is expressed as the uncreated energy of creation, preservation, and governance of the visible and invisible world. Through the Providence of God, every created being is helped to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. In the Old Testament we read: “For Your providence, O Father, governs all things, because You have given even in the sea a way and amid the waves a safe path, showing that You are able to save from every danger” (Wisdom of Solomon 14:3).