Gênesis 6
John MacArthur · Citado em PreceptAustin
Gênesis 6
MacArthur - The sons of God, identified elsewhere almost exclusively as angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), saw and took wives of the human race. This produced an unnatural union which violated the God-ordained order of human marriage and procreation (Ge 2:24). Some have argued that the sons of God were the sons of Seth who cohabited with the daughters of Cain; others suggest they were perhaps human kings wanting to build harems. But the passage puts strong emphasis on the angelic vs. human contrast. The NT places this account in sequence with other Genesis events and identifies it as involving fallen angels who indwelt men (see 2Pe 2:4, 5]; Jude 6). Matthew 22:30 does not necessarily negate the possibility that angels are capable of procreation, but just that they do not marry. To procreate physically, they had to possess human, male bodies. (See Study Notes) Ray Pritchard adds some interesting comments that would lend support that the sons of God were demons - What better way to destroy the coming Messiah than to utterly corrupt the human race through the introduction of demonism? And this truly is the oldest interpretation. This is how the Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint) understood the text approximately two centuries before the birth of Christ. This interpretation also helps us understand two cryptic passages in the New Testament: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:4-5). “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 6-7). Both passages describe a very drastic judgment upon certain angels who not only sinned but “abandoned their proper abode.” Note that in the first passage, the angels are mentioned first, then comes Noah and the flood. In Jude the phrase “just as” joins the angels with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? It was a form of “gross immorality” that consisted of going after “strange flesh.” That’s not just a reference to homosexuality. Genesis 19 tells us that the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were ready to rape the two angelic visitors who appeared in human form. Put it all together and it looks like this: In the days before the flood, certain angels rebelled against God and entered human bodies in a form of demon-possession, taking for themselves human wives. J Vernon McGee does not agree with the demon interpretation - This matter of "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" is something that has caused no end of discussion. There are a great many good men who take the position that "the sons of God" were angels. I personally cannot accept that at all. Most of my teachers taught that the sons of God were angels, and I recognize that a great many of the present-day expositors take that position. However, I cannot accept that view, because, if these were good angels, they would not commit this sin, and evil angels could never be designated as "sons of God." Also, the offspring here were men; they were not monstrosities. I do not know why it is assumed by so many that the offspring were giants. Warren Wiersbe on the sons of God - What was Satan’s plan for defeating God’s people in Noah’s day? To entice the godly line of Seth (“the sons of God”) to mix with the ungodly line of Cain (“the daughters of men”) and thus abandon their devotion to the Lord. (Bible Exposition Commentary) MY CONCLUSION on SONS OF GOD - It is best not to get too worked up about whether sons of God were demons cohabiting with women or were the godly line of Seth cohabiting with the ungodly line of Cain. The net effect was the same - unbridled evil on a global scale. God's solution was to "flush" the corruption and begin again! For a nice concise summary of arguments on the identity of the sons of God see Jack Arnold Bob
Gênesis 6
MacArthur - There are less than 18,000 species living on earth today. This number may have been doubled to allow for now extinct creatures. With two of each, a total of 72,000 creatures is reasonable...the cubic space could hold 125,000 sheep, and since the average size of land animals is less than a sheep, perhaps less than 60 percent of the space was used. The very large animals were surely represented by young. There was ample room also for the one million species of insects, as well as food for a year for everyone (Ge 6:21) (See notes on Genesis 6 in The MacArthur Study Bible) Gotquestions.org - How many of each type of animal did Noah take on the ark? Seven pairs of each kind of clean animal and one pair of each kind of other animals were taken on the ark (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2-3). By “clean” the Bible means animals that were "acceptable for sacrifice." That is why seven pairs of the clean animals were taken – so some of them could be sacrificed after the Flood was over without endangering the species. Walter Kaiser - Genesis 6:19–20; 7:2–3 How Many Animals Went into the Ark? - Hard Sayings of the Bible During the last century and a half, the prevailing nonevangelical interpretation of the Noah story has been that this is not one story but at least two separate stories poorly patched together in an attempt to make them one unified whole. Evidence offered for the existence of two original stories is the fact that Noah is first told to take two of each kind of animal on board the ark and then to take seven of each clean kind. In the final analysis, according to one eminent critical scholar, there is only one piece of evidence for the disunity of the Noah story, and that is repetition or repeated occurrence. The repetition, he reasoned, makes no sense unless two or more narratives have been conflated. Repetition can sometimes be a sign of divergent traditions and of an editor having welded together several versions of the same story, or even different stories. But there are other explanations for this same phenomenon. Repetition is one of the most fundamental tools of the literary artist. Its presence does not necessarily indicate that the literary piece is a composite hodgepodge reflecting heterogeneous elements of mixed sources, oral or written. To claim, as many have done, that Genesis 6:19–20 came from a priestly source around 450 B.C. and that Genesis 7:2–3 came from an earlier Yahwistic source around 850 B.C. is to say that the editor of the material let the contradiction stand. There is no need for such extravagant theories of origins, especially since we have a second-millennium flood story from Mesopotamia, the Gilgamesh Epic, with many of the same details. The Gilgamesh Epic, only unearthed in this century, could hardly have incorporated the so-called priestly and Yahwistic sources from the fifth and ninth centuries B.C., having been written and buried long before then. Why then must we suppose that Genesis incorporates such allegedly later sources? The truth is that there is no inherent incompatibility between the two texts as they presently stand. Genesis 7:2–3 is just more precise than 6:19–20 on the question of the types and numbers of animals and birds that would board the ark. Noah’s first instruction was to admit pairs of all kinds of creatures on the ark to preserve their lives (Gen 6:19–20). That was the basic formula. Then he was given more specific instructions about admitting seven pairs of each of the clean animals and seven pairs of each kind of bird. The purpose of this measure was to become clear only after the flood. Birds would be needed to reconnoiter the earth (Gen 8:7–12), and the clean animals and birds would be offered in sacrifice to the Lord (Gen 8:20). If Noah had taken only one pair of each and then offered each of these pairs in sacrifice, these species would have become completely extinct. The simplest and most adequate explanation is that chapter 6 of Genesis contains general summary directions—take two of each. After Noah had understood these general instructions, God spoke more specifically about the role the clean beasts and birds were to play. Scripture does not indicate how the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” arose. Later on the Mosaic law would sanction this distinction and formally define it. But we are left without any indication of the origin of the distinction, just as we are left in the dark regarding how and when the whole idea of sacrifices started. Cain and Abel both sacrificed, but a formal declaration inaugurating this ritual is not recorded. If some analysts still wish to excise the clean animals from the so-called priestly account of the Genesis flood story, they only introduce into what they are calling the Yahwistic account the very sort of repetition that they had earlier taken as a sign of divergent sources. This is too high a price to pay just to avoid admitting that perhaps the accounts of the boarding of pairs of unclean animals are connected with the boarding of seven pairs of clean animals. Genesis 7:6–15 does not support a Yahwistic-and-priestly-source explanation; indeed, it causes unusual trouble for such an analysis of the material. Genesis 6:20 "Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. fowls - Ge 1:20-24 Ac 10:11,12 two - Ge 1:28 2:19 7:8-16 Joh 5:40 Genesis 6 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive - Note the specification of "kind," which speaks of the specific species of animal. Why would he need to keep the birds who could fly over the water? There was no place for a bird to land because the entire earth would soon be covered with water. This is another piece of indirect evidence that the flood covered the entire earth submerging everything! And think about every creeping thing which means the Ark would house numerous venomous snakes! Yet we hear of no one being bitten. Clearly God protected Noah and his family. Genesis 6:21 "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." Ge 1:29,30 Job 38:41 40:20 Ps 35:6 104:27,28 136:25 145:16 147:9 Mt 6:26 Genesis 6 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries FOOD FOR THE FLOOD As for you, take (command) for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them - It is interesting that the implication is that the edible food for Noah was also what was used to feed the animals. In other words, God does not say take bundles of hay for the animals in addition to edible food for the family. When you think about this scenario, it is amazing -- 8 people would have to daily feed thousands of animals and keep them alive so that they could later repopulate the earth. One wonders how many hours Noah and family could sleep and with all the strange noises of the animals how they could stay asleep. And there was no melatonin available then! Genesis 6:22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did. Ge 7:5,9,16 17:23 Ex 40:16,19,21,23,25,27,32 De 12:32 Mt 7:24-27 Joh 2:5 15:14 Heb 11:7,8 1Jn 5:3,4 Genesis 6 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries Related Passages: Genesis 7:5+ Noah did according to all that the LORD had commanded him. Genesis 7:9+ there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. Genesis 7:16+ Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. NOAH "DOUBLE DID" Thus Noah did - Don't miss what this verse implies. Noah "did" for over 100 years! I have trouble "doing" God's will 100 minutes! Talk about endurance/perseverance (Heb 12:1b). That was Noah! Noah did it by faith, for as far as we know he had never even seen rain. Talk about walking by faith and not sight (2Co 5:7)! That was Noah. According to all that God had commanded him, so he did - This is an amazing verse describing Noah's obedience to God's commands. His obedience was complete and absolute! Two things are significant - (1) What God commands, He enables, so He did not give Noah a task too great that he could not bring it to completion. (2) Noah's obedience to the Lord's commands is evidence that his faith was authentic. THOUGHT - We can easily profess we "believe" with our lips, but if we fail to prove it with our lives, our belief is not genuine (Titus 1:16+). We are not speaking of perfect obedience, for only Jesus accomplished that. But we are talking about the general direction of a person's life. So if they say they believe and continually, habitually disobey, then it is doubtful that they ever really believed. If they truly believed, they would have received the Holy Spirit, Who leads us and empowers toward a holy walk (not perfection, but direction). Ray Pritchard add that Noah did "Nothing halfway. There was no “Well, I think I’ll build two decks instead of three” or “I think I’ll use oak instead of gopher wood” or “Let’s make it 350 cubits instead of 300 cubits long.” And he didn’t try to bargain with God about all those animals. Because he believed God when he said a flood was coming, he had no reason to question the design of the ark or the need to provide space for all the land animals. God said it and that settled it for Noah." Matthew