Genesis chapter 5 and six. The 120 years. The watchtower useage. A question

by Aussie Oz 4 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Aussie Oz

  I dont often have an interest in interpretation of scripture, BUT, I do of this one:

  Many of us are aware of the late use of Gen 6:3 and the link to our last days... "we are now 90 years into..." (WT Dec 15 2003)

  3

  I read all of chapter 5 and 6. As far as i can see, taking this all in context i am sure the '120' years is only a reference to the future lifespan god would allow mankind. All the oldies before the flood had huge lifespans and after much much shorter.

  Enosh 905; Ja'red 962; Methuselah 969; La'mech 777; Abraham 175; Joseph 110; Moses 120 etc.

  Take verse 3 by itself and perhaps one can make it say in 120 years i'll kill everybody, but to be honest that makes no sense at all. If its that bad just do it now, why wait 120 years. There was not yet the 'universal issue of sovereignty' of Jobs day.

  And even IF it does mean god planned to kill em all in 120 years, how on earth can that be linked to now? After all it was not a prophecy for 5000 odd years later merely a record of lifespans

  Maybe scholars see it the other way? i sure am not one ,but i am curious to know

  shoot me down if you think i'm seeing it wrong peoples!

  Oz

  .
• 

  Leolaia

  Yes, you've struck on one area of interpretation where leading scholars have disagreed with each other. Both readings are possible and it is hard to say which is closer to what the author intended; the Hebrew is also difficult and obscure. The reading that takes the 120 years as referring to the duration of time leading up to the Flood has enjoyed longterm support, endorsed by Jerome, Augustine, Martin Luther, and modern scholars like Wellhausen, Delitzsch, Skinner, Speiser, and others. The main points in support of this is that: (1) the figures on lifespans are found in P and not J which is the source of the Nephilim story, (2) the lifespans till Abraham at least exceeded 120 years, (3) there is a conceptual link between the divine "sons of God" intermarrying with mortal women who bear mixed children and the divine spirit of God "abiding" in mortal man, (4) this suggests that God wants to stop the bastardized mingling of the divine with flesh rather than simply putting a limit on lifespan, shortening the lives of individuals would not achieve this aim, and (5) the pericope about the Nephilim leads directly to the Flood story and could be construed as providing the motive for bringing the Flood to the earth.

  Westermann takes the other point of view. He points out that the Nephilim story in its original form was probably independent of the Flood story. One could note how in the OT and also in 1 Baruch how the giant Nephilim are depicted as the autochthonous inhabitants of Canaan who are wiped out by the Israelites; there is no hint in these particular traditions of the Nephilim/Rephaim/giants surviving a Flood, or having experienced a Flood. Some post-exilic traditions, for instance, posit the giants as the builders of the Tower of Babel. So the assumption that the reference to God's spirit withdrawing after 120 years is an allusion to the Flood is not self-evident. The idea that the antediluvian patriarchs lived very long lives is not necessarily dependent on P; the same idea is found in Mesopotamia and also in the Enochic literature (which possibly preserves traditions alluded to in Genesis 6). If God declared that lifespan will be limited to 120 years, it does not necessarily mean that it would immediately take effect; the gradual tapering down of lifespans to below 120 years is not beyond what could be meant in the text. Westermann also points out that the idea behind the passage is quite similar to Genesis 3:22-24 (also from J) and is possibly a continuation of it; first God blocks man from achieving immortality through eating of the tree of life, then God shortens his lifespan further to pass no more than 120 years. Note too that the same story imparted divine nature to man (3:5), just as the divine "sons of God" impart divine nature to their mongrel fleshly children. The shortening of the lifespan is thus seen as a punitive action similar to the expulsion of the woman and man from Eden: the woman overstepped her boundaries by attaining divine wisdom, just as the "daughters of men" overstep their boundaries by mating with the gods. Both are punished similarly: the first woman is denied immortality and her later descendents are denied lengthy lifespans. This keeps mankind's aspirations for divinity in check. The same theme reappears in the Babel narrative: mankind tries to rise up to the heavens and God realizes that "nothing that they plan will be impossible for them" (11:6). So again God imposes another obstacle on humankind to prevent them from attaining equality with the gods.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  Leolaia, thankyou for that research, i will look deeper into it.

  so it appears that dependeing on what a religion wants to teach, they will lean to that side of the history debate.

  but, even if the 120 yrs to the flood was true, that still does not set a pattern of how long god waits to bring the end now. What majic does the WT society pull to make the link in the above article?

  Oz
• 

  Leolaia

  The Society has viewed the Flood as a type for Armageddon since Rutherford's day, albeit not consistently, and the newer suggestions regarding the 120 years is part of that overall interpretive strategy. Remember how Rutherford taught in the 1930s and 1940s that JWs should not marry and bear children in advance of Armageddon? This was based on the narrative fact that in Genesis, Ham, Shem, and Japheth only had children after the Flood. Prior to Rutherford, Armageddon was not viewed as a genocidal slaughter of 99% of humanity other than JWs, but Rutherford changed the teaching again on analogy with the Flood: only Noah and his family and those on the ark survived. This, in turn, gave Rutherford more justifications to emphasis his "organization", as he could identify the Watchtower Society with the "ark" that Noah used to survive the Flood. The new ideas about the 120 years is part of this larger approach of divining details of Armageddon from the story of the Flood. Rutherford eventually was able to find information about Armageddon in virtually any part of the Bible, even in the description of Leviathan in Job.
• 

  Larsinger58

  Not sure if this is entirely relevant to your question. But it is a fascinating study close up. Thanks for bringing it up. I did have to refine my view somewhat.

  Thus it may not be specifically relevant to what you're asking, but the chronological application of 120 years in relation to a "generation" of Noah's day is applied from 1874-1994. This parallels a "last generation" of 80 years from 1914-1994. The context of Matthew 24 is clearly about the second coming events vs Armageddon. Remember, Jesus Christ first arrives when Satan is kicked out of heaven and he is in the earth loose for a short while during the time Jesus Christ seals the elect. This is done by the angels and thus secretly and invisibly. Thus the illustration of two in the field or two in the mill house, where one is taken and one is left behind.

  Matthew 24v 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; 41 two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming."

  There are two specifics here. The PAROUSIA (presence) of the messiah, and his COMING or actual arrival. If we apply both separately to the 120 years, his coming would have to occur before the 120 years were up, and the activities of his "parousia", that is, those specific things in preparation of the coming would occur during the 120 years. Thus it could be interpreted that Christ's "presence" would occur over a period of 120 years. So even though the Bible students were expecting Christ's "arrival" in 1874, which didn't happen, that is only partially true, because his "presence" could be said to have begun in 1874, in which case you have a chronological parallel specific to 120 years in relation to Noah's generation.

  But there are so many potential interpretations, obviously. So I just wanted to note that some of the elect, like myself, consider the "generation" of Noah's day of 120 years to be fulfilled from the beginning of Christ's "presence" in 1874 until 1994, the generation that ended after the Christ's arrival in 1992 (based on the fall of Jerusalem in 529 BCE vs 607 or 587 BCE).

  LS