“Your Word is a lamp for my feet and a light for my path.” (Psalm 119:105) “If you continue in my Word… you will know the truth.” (John 8:31-32) The Bible is a book of revelation. It reveals to us what God wants us to know about him and about our relationship to him. In order for anything to serve adequately as a revelation, it must be sufficiently clear and understandable to accomplish that purpose. One the basis of these two passages, among others, Christians believe that the Bible is a clear book. It is not some obscure and mysterious enigma that leaves us wondering about God and ourselves.
But to say that the Bible as a whole is sufficiently clear that we can know the truth does not mean that it is clear in every detail. The Apostle Peter, in his second epistle (3:16) recognizes that some of the Apostle Paul’s writings are hard to understand. Jesus noted that he spoke in parables so that not only could he teach his believing people but he could also hide teachings from those who were against him and his Word. (Luke 8 4:10)
Among the passages that have been difficult for Christians is Genesis 6:1-4.
6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (NIV)
There have been primarily two approaches to explaining these verses.
The first views the “sons of God” as referring to angels – usually to fallen angels – and says that these angels mated with human daughters and that, as a result of these marriages, giant offspring came into being who were very violent and ruthless. This view cites as support the way the Bible refers to angels as “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:2; and 38:7. To this, supporters of this view add the apocryphal Book of Enoch, with its references to the “watchers” coming to mate with human women. This view also commonly ties the mating of the “sons of God” with the daughters of men with the reference to the Nephilim in verse 4, postulating that these half angel/half human progeny were giants of old. There are many, even among Christians, who accept this view.
I have major problems with this view. First, it makes the Bible seem to be no different than the pagan myths of antiquity. This destroys the Bible’s status as a reliable basis for faith. Secondly, it confuses the angels of Job, who in that context are angels who are still obedient to God, with rebellious angels, those who fell from God with Satan. Thirdly, it requires support from non-biblical sources. Fourthly, and most importantly, it contradicts the clear statement of Jesus that angels do not marry. (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35)
The second primary view is that the “sons of God” refers to God’s believing people. The Scriptures commonly refer to God’s faithful followers as his sons (B’nai) (Deuteronomy 14:1, et al). This view ascribes the “daughters of men” to the daugters of unbelieving people. This view cites the common warning that God gave to the Children of Israel not to take wives from the heathen nations around them, a warning they commonly ignored. Just as the result of marrying foreign wives in post-Exodus times resulted in apostasy, so, it can be inferred, the marrying of heathen women caused apostasy before the Flood. Most Christian scholars adopt this view and understanding. I, too, being aware of only these two options, have concluded that this is the better explanation.
While I acknowledge that this second view is possible, I do have some reservations about it. This second view commonly seems to accept the idea that the “sons of God” were virtually identical with the descendants of Seth and that the “daughters of men” were descendants of Cain. While the Bible says nothing of direct communication between God and people after Cain and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the teachings of God’s truth were passed from Seth to his children and grandchildren, the translations of the names of Seth’s descendants suggest that at least some of them were not true believers. The names of “Enoch” and “Lamech” appear in both Cain’s and Seth’s genalogies. The name “Methusael” (man of God) appears in Cain’s line, and could reflect either his claim to be a man of God or the fact that he really was a man of God. “Methuselah” means “adult man of the spear”. Name translations are, of course, inconclusive (Seth’s Enoch shared a name with Cain’s son, but was clearly a man of God), and I can accept the concept of the “spiritual descendants of Seth” being distinguished from the “spritual descendants of Cain,” but accepting an idea only because it’s the better of two doesn’t seem very strong.
I recently became aware of a third approach to these verses. It’s not my own idea. I learned of it from a paper by David Livingston, written in 2011. It has been published online by the Associates for Biblical Research at biblearchaeology.org/research/chronolical-categories/flood-of-noah/2690-who-were-the-sons-of-god-in-genesis-6. It is not that I fully endorse this approach, but that I see it as an interesting perspective and worthy of being included among the possibilities. I do not trace Livingston’s line of reasoning, but agree the conclusion can mesh with Scripture.
The phrase “sons of God” does not need to be taken as a whole, but can be examined piece by piece. First, the word “son” does not always mean biological son in the Bible. It can refer to membership in or participation with a group. The “sons of the prophets” in Kings were not necessarily literal sons, but likely students or followers of Elijah and Elisha. They were a distinct group at the time. Paul called Timothy his “son”, even though it is evident that Paul, who never married, was not his biological father.
The word “god” is also used by the Bible, though seldom, to refer to a class of people; namely, to those in positions of earthly authority. (Judges 21:6; 22:8,9; Psalm 82:1-6; John 10:34) The “sons of God”, therefore could refer to the class of royalty, those in the position of authority in government, which is to act as God’s agent and representative. (Romans 13:1-7)
It was quite common for powerful people in antiquity to make the claim that they were God, or one of the gods (Egypt, especially) or a direct representative from God (Mesopotamia) to assert that they had authority to rule over others. The Assyrian ruler Ashurbannipal’s name translates to “Ashur (a god’s name) has made a son.” Ancient religion and politics were almost always connected and could repeat a pattern started before the Flood. This sheds additional light on God’s complaint against the people at the time of Samuel when they wanted a king. They wanted a king like the nations around them, and the nations around them had, if they were consistent with ancient practice, kings who claimed to be gods.
If “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to those who had claimed for themselves the status of a god to exercise authority over others, the “daughters of men” could well refer to the daughters of the common people, the non-royalty, whom the royals considered their property by divine right. The reference in Genesis 6 that these sons of God took (the Hebrew word is “took” not “married”) any whom they chose fits with the typical practice of ancient kings to take whatever woman or women they wanted. Even Esther was so taken.
But what about the Nephilim1 in verse 4? Weren’t these the result of the “sons of God” mating with the “daughters of men”? I don’t think so. The Bible does not say, “as a result.” It says, “when.” It simply notes a contemporary reality. In fact, it’s more likely that the giants were giants before they became “sons of God”; that is, earthly kings and rulers. Being of larger stature, they could well have made the claim that their size and strength revealed them to be God’s choice to exercise authority over others, but being ungodly men, exercised that rule with cruelty and violence, perhaps even bragging about it as did Lamech in Genesis 4:23.
I don’t doubt that there were giants in those days and that the word Nephilim refers to giants. There were giants in Canaan and the land of the Amorites and Bashan at the time of the Exodus and into the time of David. (the Anakim and Raphaim, like Goliath and his brother) Whether the reference in Numbers 13:33 is a reference to genetic reality (a divinely inspired comment on their origin) or simply the claim of the false spies, the people associated the word Nephilim with giants.
This, then, presents the third alternative to understanding Genesis 6:1-4. There might yet be others of which I am not aware. As I see it, both the second or third alternatives fit with the Scripture record. The first does not.
1Nephilim is a Hebrew word that is not translated. Etymologically it is related to Hebrew words that refer to falling, and could mean “those who fall”, “those who fall upon others”, or “the fallen ones”. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, this word was translated as “gigantes”.