• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Objection based on Gen 6:1-8

Sonny Chancelor

Sonny Chancelor

Member
Male
Is Gen 6:1-8 a valid objection to polygyny? Isn't God pronouncing displeasure in verse 3 regarding verse 2? Furthermore isn't verse 5 indicating that "taking wives" is "evil"? Nothwithstanding the "Nephilim" verse 4, reference, from which I understand is a controversial verse about something considered obscure and irrelevant for us enlightened post-modern Christians.

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, [c]because he also is flesh; [d]nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the [f]sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
 
*sputter* Did somebody say NEPHILIM!?!?!

Before I drop the rant, I would like to say that under no circumstances is Gen. 6:1-8 a valid objection to polygyny, and that God's displeasure in verse 3 is indeed regarding verse 2.
But to skip verse 4 based on its controversy in our quest to understand verse 5 would be a TITANIC (ha ha that is a pun) mistake.

This argument requires a normalcy bias to override a plain reading of the scripture, IMO.

can't explain further. must rant now.

To define "Sons of God" as anything other than "angels from heaven" would be an exercise in vigorously ignoring the first chapters of Job and to a lesser extent Luke 20:36.
The idea that "Sons of God" and "Daughters of Men", are really just poetic ways of saying "men and women" is silly and COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED in scripture. Any attempt to equate "sons of God" to Abel's lineage and "daughters of men" to Cain's lineage, is an exercise in derping before you herp, which violates derping protocol and is therefore invalid. Also completely unfounded in scripture.

And trying to ignore that verbiage in verse 2 and separate it from verse 4 is impossibru because the terms are repeated, linking the two verses in our understanding forever and ever and ever! What is being described isn't men taking multiple wives displeasing the Lord... nor is there any possible way to say that the product of a poly union would be to create offspring whose every intent was only evil continually. That was either a product of the fallen nature of man since the beginning or else (which I think is more likely,) the offspring of an angel and a human is a twisted abomination incapable of any 'good' or 'pure' thought or intent. Certainly Poly doesn't make this happen, as the Prophet Samuel, (and every tribe of Israel) was the result of a Poly marriage.

And of course the nephilim are irredeemably evil, and also very much able to be described as men. The nephilim tribes of Numbers were quite easily defined as tribes of men. It just so happened that these tribes needed to be completely scoured from the earth, man woman and child. And as Enoch would tell us ( Whose opinion no enlightened post modern Christian was even looking for) the spirits of the dead Nephilim are evil spirits that Jesus would later teach us how to cast out in His name.
They are bad enough when incorporeal and infesting living humans. They were just awful when they had their own bodies. They needed a flooding in the worst way.

This chain of thought is so borked that I hope you are just playing Devil's advocate and that you don't actually know anybody that holds this opinion. I can't even get serious and methodical about it because it hurts my dome even to hold the idea still for a minute to look at it straight on.

Tell me where you heard this!
 
Slumberfreeze, I appreciate your rant. But keep in mind that this challenge came from my wife while doing our periodic bible readings/devotions together. I am trying to gently lead her to the truth of polygyny as being not only scriptural but also favorable and desirable by God.
Verse 2 is key...we didn't even think about what the term "Sons of God" meant; despite the key-word reference number next to the phrase(numerically coded 430)..
I’ve heard the subject of the Nephilim(also numerically coded 5303) brought up before in sundry Sunday school classes. I wish people would stop beating around the bush and just come out and state that this passage of scripture is PRO-POLYGYNY(this is the pink elephant in the evangelical American church). This scripture passage to non-seminarian trained plain folk like myself and my wife reads as such “taking many wives is evil”. I happen to be already convinced that polygyny is biblical, but my wife is not.
How do I offer her this information without appearing to her as a heretic?
The numerical coded references are contained in our family study bible the Hebrew-Greek Key Word study bible NASB published by AMG publishers.
 
Awhoops... My sincerest apologies. No offense intended. I'm an idiot.

I don't see that this passage is either for or against polygyny, because what is in view is not so much the number of people marrying, but who is doing the marrying.

In this passage, it is the sons of God who are marrying the daughters of men, and whether or not these were polygynous marriages isn't something that can be proven. (Unless someone knows some serious Hebrew...) To say that men (plural) married women (plural) does not really tell us whether these marriages were monogamous or polygamous.

However, this sin that was committed by the angels is referenced by Peter in 2:4 and again in Jude 6-7.

This sin eventually produced the Anakim (Numbers 13:32-33). The nephilim (and their various related tribes) were closely associated and interbred with the tribes that came from Canaan, Ham's son.

The nephilim and rephaim polka dot the whole Old Testament with their shenanigans, so the importance of not discounting their origins in Genesis 6 cannot be overstated.

As far as how to present the biblical nature of polygyny to your wife goes: I humbly leave that to men who didn't recently put their feet in their mouths.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
Awhoops... My sincerest apologies. No offense intended. I'm an idiot.

I don't see that this passage is either for or against polygyny, because what is in view is not so much the number of people marrying, but who is doing the marrying.

In this passage, it is the sons of God who are marrying the daughters of men, and whether or not these were polygynous marriages isn't something that can be proven. (Unless someone knows some serious Hebrew...) To say that men (plural) married women (plural) does not really tell us whether these marriages were monogamous or polygamous.

However, this sin that was committed by the angels is referenced by Peter in 2:4 and again in Jude 6-7.

This sin eventually produced the Anakim (Numbers 13:32-33). The nephilim (and their various related tribes) were closely associated and interbred with the tribes that came from Canaan, Ham's son.

The nephilim and rephaim polka dot the whole Old Testament with their shenanigans, so the importance of not discounting their origins in Genesis 6 cannot be overstated.

As far as how to present the biblical nature of polygyny to your wife goes: I humbly leave that to men who didn't recently put their feet in their mouths.
Click to expand...
 
I am still trying to navigate this site, so I hope this ends up where I intended it. If I may add my two cents worth. The issue as already noted was the crossing of kinds (angelic spirit sons of God cohabitating with flesh and blood daughters of God, Humans). From Gods perspective this conduct would be no different from the sanctions placed at Leviticus 18: 23. The crossing of kinds was forbidden! The fact is the angelic sons of God can do what we cannot as they are indeed "spirit" sons of our God. However we too can do what they cannot as we can procreate due to the blessings of the marital union. Marriage was put in place for mankind and due to the beauty and fulfilment that the marriage union can provide it is truly something wonderful and a gift from God. But it was and is a gift from God given to mankind not angels. The amount of wives a man took was never in question, a man could take just one wife as did Isaac or he could take more as did Abraham or David, the key was as noted at Gen 2:24 and confirmed at Mat 19:5-9, marriage was to be a lasting union and divorce was only to be allowed if the wife was unfaithful to her husband, otherwise the marital union stood regardless of how many wives a man had. In other words if a man takes a wife, he takes an oath to care for her for the rest of his days and should he take another then he again takes another oath with regard to her and so on.

With regard to how to help your wife, if the discussion is only about marriage and polygamy then you will have a battle as you are asking your wife to turn her back on something that she has understood as correct for as long as she has existed. If however your discussions are based on "worship" then the matter changes dramatically. Let me illustrate what I mean. If the God of the bible has given us the direction that marriage can be formed in monogamy, polygamy and or concubinage (common law marriage) thus allowing three strands or paths that can be walked on, all on the same road and all acceptable to him, yet if a false god was to come along and call two of those three unclean, even sins, and insisted as a matter of worship, that only monogamy is acceptable or we could say that we could only walk in just one lane of that road, if we then choose to walk in the lane of monogamy or polygamy or concubinage then we walk in harmony with God. But if we walk only in the one lane (monogamy) and call cursed and sinners against our god (I say our "god" as any such god is not the God of the bible) all who dare to walk in the other two lanes, then which god could rightly claim our obedience or worship? Worship is indeed the key.

I also believe that simplicity is necessary. Is it not true that a lie is always complicated but truth is easily understood once grasped. We can present our own intellectual intelligence so as to leave others in awe of us but in doing so we miss the point. Keep it simple, make it clear and thus teach as did Christ. As a husband it took me a number of years to both get this clear in my own head and help my wife to see the issue at hand. As a suggestion, when reading your bible start in Genesis and work through to Malachi and seek out any expression in relation to marriage and try to find any sanction "against" polygamy or concubinage. What I am suggesting is to try by means of the Hebrew scriptures, to find support for the teaching of monogamy and the rejection of polygamy but let the bible speak for no man can express it better than God himself (2Tim 3:16-17). If I may make just one other point, don't worry too much about about trying to understand the original texts and thus get bogged down in attempting to translate ancient Hebrew or Aramaic or even Greek, rather try to obtain as many different translations of the scriptures that you can and then compare any verse you find between the bibles, that way you will gain the benefit of the work of many good and faithful translators. But most of all keep an open mind in both directions, seek truth and never try to justify a preconceived idea or notion.
 
Don't try to convince your wife. Don't talk to her about it. Don't bring it up innocently. Don't happen to mention it. Don't muse about it out loud. Just be still and wait. A long time. Let her stew. She'll come around eventually.
 
Simple answer for your wife: This passage has nothing to do with polygamy. It doesn't even mention polygamy. It's completely irrelevant.

It does happen to use the word "wives" - but that word appears 133 times in the KJV. If every time the word "wives" appears the topic is polygamy, then the deacons referred to in 1 Timothy 3:11 were supposed to be all polygamous. If your wife is convinced "wives" means polygamy, just send her here and let her read references until she realises how flawed this approach is.

Now if you do want to study the Nephilim, that's a fascinating study also, and there is plenty of material above to get you going, but it's a completely separate issue.
 
Last edited:
I am truly humbled by everyone's responses so far. I feel so much gratitude to everyone that has replied. You all might find me "playing devil's advocate" with the type of questions and posts I will be making from here on out. Please do not be led to believe that I am trying to discredit PM or biblical polygyny. I am seeking earnestly for the truth and have realized that I have alot of "world-view" layers to shed before I see the world as God wants me to, authentically & genuinely & truthfully. I am just now, at 41, beginning to understand what it means to "seek His will" and "pray every morning" and "love your enemies" and "walk with God". It is exciting, and I appreciate everyone's sincerity, passion and intellect regarding this thread's title. I hope to meet everyone in person one day. Although this forum may seem impersonal and anonymous, I feel like I've heard from people worthy of strong brotherhood in Christ Jesus our Lord.

One last thing, if my wife never acknowledges the truth of biblical polygyny, I will still be content in knowing that the Lord blessed me with a monogamous relationship with a wonderful woman that is supportive, intelligent, attractive, spiritual, and Christ-redeemed.

Slumberfreeze, your frankness, honesty & passion do not go unnoticed. Your posts and replies are very inspiring; can't wait to learn more from you!
 
I have to disagree! To say that this text has "nothing to do with polygamy. It doesn't even mention polygamy. It's completely irrelevant." Is simply not correct.

Just to broaden our understanding a little. Many theologians and supposed leaders of Christendom see this text as pivotal in their argument against polygamy. There are plenty of religious groups out there that take the same position with this text and teach that polygamy was indeed the issue in this instance. So for a man's wife to raise such a concern with regard to this text shows that she is a thinker and not just willing to be led by the nose so as to follow a teaching without understanding or proving it first.

Think too of the fact that Lamech had already set the pattern for polygamy (Gen 4:19) before these "spirit sons of God" rebelled and took the form of men and then went about taking wives for themselves. In fact the text at Gen 6:2 says that they began taking all whom they chose. So is it reasonable to think that these rebellious spirit sons of God only had monogamous unions with the daughters of men? Do you really think that these God dishonoring, violent, vile rebellious individuals showed restraint in only taking one wife at a time? Even if they did show such restraint and only took one woman as a wife at a time before moving on to the next, they still would have practiced polygamy as can be seen by the comments from the "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology second edition" which stated "Polygamy is the practice of marrying more than one spouse either simultaneously or in consecutive marriages. The three primary types of polygamy are polygyny, which is the practice of a man having more than one wife simultaneously, primarily found in non-western societies; consecutive polygamy or serial monogamy, which is the practice of divorce and remarriage practiced primarily in the west............." Thus as the scripture states that these "sons of God" began taking as wives all whom they chose, their conduct most certainly would have involved polygamy in one form or another. So to make enquiry with regard to this text in relation to the subject of polygamy is both relevant and reasonable and any wife that has brought such a text up for consideration should be commended for both her depth of thought and her pursuit of truth in this matter.

It could also be considered that at Noah's time the flood brought about the destruction of the ungodly due to the fact that their very thinking was bad all the time (Gen 6:5). If we consider the fact that these "sons of God" were taking all whom they chose, do you think that if a woman was already the wife of another man these rebellious individuals would show respect for God's arrangement and leave such a woman alone? Or do you think that in such a case they would just take what they wanted and if a man objected do you think they would have a chat about it with him or just slaughter him and thus teach others extreme violence (Gen 6:11-13)? The destruction at that time was not due to polygamy but rather due to the depraved practices of both these "sons of god" and indeed all mankind with the only exception being Noah and his family.

So as noted in the above comments in this thread by both myself and others, polygamy was not the issue at this time and was of itself not spoken against by God.

At the risk of upsetting people I feel that I must comment on the advice given "Don't try to convince your wife. Don't talk to her about it. Don't bring it up innocently. Don't happen to mention it. Don't muse about it out loud. Just be still and wait. A long time. Let her stew. She'll come around eventually." How is such advise in harmony with the responsibility that a husband has towards his wife? Is a wife not told to seek answers from her husband at home (1Cor 14:34-35). If a loyal and loving wife seeks to gain answers from her husband and yet he refuses to talk about it and even lets her "stew", then where exactly can she go? Did not the scribes and the pharisees of Jesus day treat people in such a manner? Did they not treat them with contempt and simply lord it over them? That however was not the way of Christ nor his disciples. Does not Mat 9:36 show what kind of shepherd Jesus was? Should not a man care for his wife in a similar way, after all she is his flesh, is she not (Mat 19:5) ? A wife is under the oversight of her husband (1Cor 11:3) just as a man is under Christ. As such is the case, a wife should be treated as Christ did the congregation, with love and loyalty, not just left to "stew" (Col 3:18-19).

Sorry if my comments have upset any. But this is "biblical families" is it not. Thus any advice given should be both scripturally correct and upbuilding should it not? Our personal opinions while interesting still need to be in harmony with both scripture and the conduct of Christ, do they not? By all means correct me if I am wrong, for none of us are above correction as all of us are imperfect and thus don't always get it right all the time.

I would like if I may to make just one more comment. If such questions get raised by our wives or others and we are unclear as to how to give an answer, then from my little time here, it is apparent that there are many with the knowledge that can assist us and such ones are no doubt able and willing to share such knowledge so as to help us all. It is good to also keep in mind the text from 1Cor 8:1 as love and its manifestation in both our personal lives and our interactions with others must take first place.
 
@Aussies, I stand by my brief statement that this passage is irrelevant since it doesn't mention polygamy, because I do believe this is the most correct response. There are plenty of scriptures that do actually discuss polygamy, so there are plenty of solid passages to investigate, before getting into speculation like "were the sons of God polygamous, and was this being condemned here?". Because if you're going to speculate that, you could speculate anything - you've suggested yourself that they may have been committing adultery when taking these wives, maybe this passage is about adultery and that is what is being condemned? That's even more logical - yet still speculative, because the passage doesn't mention adultery either.

But I take your point that despite this being a really terrible argument, people make it anyway and consider it pivotal, so it needs a response. I do think the best response is that it is a really terrible argument and shouldn't even be made in the first place. If someone considers this their strongest argument, that simply shows how terribly flawed their position is! But if someone really does insist on persisting with this line of reasoning, there is more that could be said.

In that case, it would become important to study the nephilim. Read the book of Enoch (outside the accepted canon, but quoted directly in Jude 1:14-15 and arguably elsewhere so certainly worth our study also at least as a historical account, whether or not every word is divinely inspired). Enoch 7 explains what happened here in more detail. It states that 200 angels / watchers were involved.
Enoch 7:10-8:9 said:
Then they took wives, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees.
And the women conceiving brought forth giants.
Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all which the labor of men produced; until it became impossible to feed them;
When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them;
And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat their flesh one after another, and to drink their blood.
Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.
Moreover Azazyel taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered.
Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways.
Amazarak taught all the sorcerers, and dividers of roots:
Armers taught the solution of sorcery;
Barkayal taught the observers of the stars,
Akibeel taught signs;
Tamiel taught astronomy;
And Asaradel taught the motion of the moon,
And men, being destroyed, cried out; and their voice reached to heaven.
Click to expand...
So basically, according to Enoch, they brought massive amounts of evil into the world in many different ways. Scripture refers to this more briefly, in 6:4-5 - mentioning the giants, and the fact that men were wicked and evil "continually", ie in many different ways rather than just in one. Were they polgyamous? Probably. But when man is condemned in Genesis 6:5 for a whole host of evil stuff, could this really be all about polygamy? Was God really willing to put up with fallen angels mating with humans and producing hybrid offspring, teaching sorcery, violence, impiety etc, but then got all upset about the fact they took more than one wife each and condemned everyone because of that?

Even assuming it is plausible that this IS all about polygamy, it is at least equally plausible that it is all about adultery, or sorcery, or war, or unlawful hybridisation, or astrology, or all sorts of other things. Where is the scriptural evidence that polygamy is the key issue here? Where is the evidence that it is even one of many issues?

Or, to put it another way, this whole thing is like me saying:
"Yeshua's first miracle was to make red wine for a wedding, not white wine, because only red wine was symbolic of his blood, and he was making a point about his death. Prove me wrong from scripture."
 
I agree to a large degree with what you are saying, for even in my response I have made it clear that I personally do not see this text as calling polygamy into question. However I think you are missing the point, This thread started due to the concerns of a wife and the question was asked by her husband. So rather than belittling her and saying that her question has no merit, I simply was acknowledging that others also hold a similar view point in harmony with her concern, rather than just dismissing her question as of no merit. It should also be considered that before her husband could make a sound argument so as to explain the text correctly he must first understand what the argument is. At least we both agree that this text is not in any way a sanction against polygamy even though it does address the matter of marriage or the taking of a wife or if you so wish (speculation) wives. My primary concern was the lack of dignity that seemed to be presented to another mans wife due to the fact that she asked the same question that many others have asked before her. As I understand it she has done exactly as those in Beroea were doing in their search for truth (Acts 17: 11).

It is also good to remember that there is a difference between mere speculation and the ability to reason on a matter.
 
I think you need to reassess your position with regard to "speculation". I just read you comments regarding
Nuclear bomb in the Bible?

 
I certainly don't intend to sound belittling. Sonny Chancelor is asking how to respond to his wife, and I am suggesting that he responds pointing out that this particular passage is not about polygamy. Which is the most fundamental issue with it, in my mind. He can take that suggestion and use or reject it as he sees fit.

Regarding speculation, I have no issue with speculation in and of itself, I do plenty of it - when scripture gives us no clear guidance on a matter so we are left wondering about it. However when our speculation is contradicted by clear scriptures elsewhere, the fact that it was only speculation to begin with is very important to keep in mind, so we know to reject our speculative conclusions in favour of following the clear scripture that shows we were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top