Wickedness That Invites Repercussion-I

WICKEDNESS That INVITES REPERCUSSION-I—Genesis 6:1-8

Attention:

Reiterate the flow of events concerning Cain ‘s legacy of unrepentance & Seth’s transmittance of righteousness.

Genesis records the wanton wickedness of humanity & its repercussions.

Repercussion—An unintended consequence occurring some time after an event or action, esp. an unwelcome one.

Wanton wickedness invites repercussion.

How/When does wickedness invite repercussion?

7 dispositions/qualities of wickedness that invite repercussion.

1—Wickedness invites repercussion thru...

Aberrant RELATIONSHIPs(:1-2)

Explanation: (:1-2)

:1—“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, & daughters were born to them,”

“Men” began to “increase” in number on the earth, as shown from the genealogies of 4:16—5:32. The birth of “daughters” was obviously part of that equation. And this has been specified in the formula—“& had sons & daughters” of 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30. As well as implied thru Naamah’s birth as the “sister of Tubal-Cain” in 4:22.

“6:1 introduces the story of the “daughters” often mentioned in passing in chapt. 5 despite their...[seeming]...irrelevance to the genealogical line.”—WBC-G.J. Wenham

“Men”—Mda aw-dawm'—N. m.—1) Man, mankind. Strong—Ruddy i.e. A human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.).

“Multiply”—bbr raw-bab'—1) To be or become many, be or become much, be or become great. Strong—a primitive root; properly, To cast together, i.e. Increase, especially in number; also (as denominative from hbbr reb-aw-baw') To multiply by the myriad.

“Daughters”—tb bath—N. f.—1) Daughter; 2) Young women, women. Strong—from hnb baw-naw'; a primitive root; to build (literally & figuratively) (as feminine of Nb ben); A daughter (used in the same wide sense as other terms of relationship, literally & figuratively).

“Born”—dly yaw-lad'—1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail. Strong—To bear young; causatively, To beget; medically, To act as midwife; specifically, To show lineage.

:2—“that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; & they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”

However, “the sons of God” “saw” the beauty of the daughters of these men. This evidently is a bad combination of events...“the daughters” of men & “the sons of God.”

These sons of God “took wives” from the daughters of men. This ‘taking of wives‘ describes a legitimate marriage & is not a description of force. This behavior was unacceptable or unbecoming, in God’s eyes, for the group referred to as “the sons of God.”

The “beauty” of the daughters outweighed the moral commitment of “the sons to God,” so that they intermarried—when they should not have(A previous & gracious attempt to circumvent this by removing Cain to a wandering lifestyle(4:11-16))—regardless of the moral consequences.

Note Gen. 3:5-6—The draw of the fruit initiated & invited sin thru fleshly satisfaction, appearance, & lust...as sin always does(Js. 1:13-15).

“...mere lust reigned. For marriage is a thing too sacred to allow that men should be induced to it by the lust of the eyes!”.... “our appetite becomes brutal, when we are so ravished with the charms of beauty, that those things which are chief are not taken into the account.”....[These] wandered without discrimination, rushing onward according to their lust. We are taught... in these words, that temperance is to be used in holy wedlock, & that its profanation is no light crime before God. For it is not fornication which is here condemned... but the too great indulgence of license in choosing themselves wives. And truly,...the sons of God should degenerate when they thus bound themselves in the same yoke with unbelievers.”—John Calvin

“Sons of God” was also a Canaanite term used to describe “the council of the gods.” Likewise in other ancient religions, deities are recorded as mating “with beautiful women by force or persuasion” & thereby producing demigods.

*Therefore, it is “more likely,” that what is seen in our text, in verses 1-4 is actually “a refutation of pagan stories that told of a race of superhuman giants.”—NAC

**Who are these “sons of God?”” The meaning of the phrase is debated to this day.

To me, it appears to refer to the line of men thru Seth, who “began to call on the name of the LORD”(4:26). These were the ones thru whom Noah was produced & thru whom mankind would repopulate the world, eventually producing the Christ.

If the above is true, then the unqualified term “men,” in this verse, is both technical & significant. It would refer to those produced thru the legacy of unrepentance maintained thru the genealogical line of Cain(4:16-24).

“By the former[“sons of God”] is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter[“men”], the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles & practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives & mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, & consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.”—JFB(also Gill, Calvin, but Contra MacArthur)