Selected Essays And Book Reviews

According to Dr. John H. Sailhamer, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, three popular views for the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 have been developed, and they are that the "sons of God" were angels, that they were royalty, or that they were of the godly men of Seth [1]. The argument for royalty, however, which was mostly Jewish in origin and tradition, does not have much support within the current theological community, so it will not be considered below. Only the first and last views will be discussed.

A. The "sons of God" were Angels View. Based on an article entitled "Old Testament: Genesis," in the Monarch Notes, the "sons of God" were marrying the daughters of men and producing a race of supermen [2]. That document also says that those marriages, in Genesis 6:1-4, led to sin and corruption among the heavenly beings.

A concern about the Monarch Notes, though, is that it credits "J" with having written about those marriages in the Book of Genesis, and that means that the author of the Notes did not accept Moses as the sole author of the Pentateuch. Some liberal theologians and Bible critics have credited the authorship of the first five Books of the Bible to four fabricated individuals named "J" for Jehovah, "E" for Elohim, "D" for Deuteronomy, and "P" for Priestly. But to not accept Moses as the author of the Pentateuch is the same as not accepting Jesus as the Christ because Jesus did accept the works of Moses. Because of their position on who wrote the Book of Genesis, the Monarch Notes must be viewed as the liberal, less preferred position.

Even though the Monarch Notes appears to be liberal, other less liberal scholars have also argued that the "sons of God" were angels. Reverend James Crichton, senior minister of the United Free Church in Scotland, indicated that most scholars support the theory that the "sons of God" were supernatural beings [3]. But Dr. Henry C. Thiessen countered by saying that no one has ever read in Scripture about the sons of angels [4]. Similarly, Dr. Elmer Towns listed ten points, made by George Lawrence Lawlor in his book, The Epistle of Jude, and those points also supported the proposition that the "sons of God" were supernatural beings. But then, Dr. Towns responded to each of the ten to show that those points were not necessarily true [5].

B. The "sons of God" were of the Godly Line of Seth View. Dr. J. Vernon McGee discussed the other popular view of the "sons of God" in his commentary on the Book of Genesis [6]. He wrote that the "sons of God" were not angelic beings because good angels would not have behaved in such an ungodly manner and because bad angels, or demons, would not have been called the "sons of God."

Dr. McGee believed that the "sons of God" were the men that had been born from the godly line of Seth and that the daughters of men were those that had descended from the ungodly line of Cain. Bible Commentator Matthew Henry also agreed with that interpretation. Mr. Henry, then, went on to say that the sons of Seth should have stayed to themselves rather than going after the ungodly daughters of Cain, but of course, they did not do so [7].

C. No Clear Answer. A person could easily challenge either of the above views about the "sons of God." The word "sons" could have been used to indicate any beings that were created by God, including angels, and if that were true, then it would provide some significant support for the angels or demons theory. To work towards a solution to this conflict, the next step will be to look at what the Bible says about angels marrying and bearing children.

As was already stated above, some scholars believe that the "sons of God" were angels, while others have said that they were of the godly line of Seth. But Matthew 22:23-30 implies that the beings definitely could not have been angels. In response to a trick question by the Sadducees about who would be married to whom in the resurrection, Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."

The passage in Genesis 6:1-4 clearly says that the "sons of God" and the daughters of men were marrying each other and that they were producing children. Matthew 22:30, however, just as clearly says that angels in heaven do not marry. While Jesus used the words "in heaven," nothing else in the Bible implies that angels were ever marrying or producing children on earth. If they did so in the Genesis timeframe, then their feat would have truly been a once in this existence event. Dr. Charles Ryrie suggested that God might have permitted angels to produce offspring with women. But if He had, then it would have been an exceptional permission that was contrary to everything known about angels and marriage [8]. Dr. Ryrie also said that the children would have been mongrels if they had been born of demons and then added that that is highly unlikely [9].

If the likelihood is remote that the "sons of God" were angels or demons, then how should the opening four verses of Genesis, Chapter Six be interpreted? The answer lies in knowing and understanding the identity of the Nephilim.

Genesis 6:4 says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." In that verse, Moses seemed to be talking about three different groups - the Nephilim, the sons of God, and the daughters of men. To identify each, one can break up the verse into four parts.

The Four Parts of Genesis 6:4. The first part says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days." The second part says, "and also afterward." The third part says, "when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them." The fourth part says, "They were the heroes of old, men of renown." Understanding the identity of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 will help in the understanding of the "sons of God," the daughters of men, and also in knowing what they were all doing.

Special Handling by the King James and New International Versions of the Bible. "Nephilim" in Hebrew means giant, and in the King James Version of the Bible, it was actually translated giant. In the New International Version, though, the word was left in the form of its transliteration. A transliteration is a Hebrew word that has been rewritten with English letters so that it has the appearance of a word with letters from the English alphabet. Transliterations were not limited to Hebrew, though. Within the biblical realm, they have also been used with Greek for the New Testament.

The word "Nephilim" appears in only one other place in the Bible besides Genesis 6:4, and that is in Numbers 13:33, which says, "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." In Numbers 13:33, Moses seemed to be describing giants or very large people, and the witnesses, who saw those descendants of Anak, said that they felt like grasshoppers while in their presence.

What Kind of Giants? A fascinating point can be made with respect to the two different Bible translations mentioned above. In the King James Version, the translators replaced the Hebrew word "Nephilim" with giant in both the Genesis and the Numbers passages, while the New International Version left the word in its Hebrew transliteration form. Why would the translators have done as they did if the only meaning of the word were giant? The answer, obviously, must be that Nephilim can mean something more or something different than just physical giants.

When Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, he did not identify breaks between chapters. Therefore, in the current passage, Genesis, Chapter Five, would have ended and proceeded directly into Chapter Six without any kind of special designation or separation. For that reason, one must look at Genesis 6:1-4 in its broader context, which goes all the way back to Genesis 5:1, to get the full meaning.

A key word throughout the Book of Genesis is "account" or "generation," and that word can be used to divide and study the entire Book. Genesis 5:1 says, "This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God." Genesis 6:9 says, "This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." The passage in Genesis 6:1-4 is only a part of the whole division that runs from Genesis 5:1 through Genesis 6:8, and those verses must be examined in light of their whole context.

Who were the Nephilim? The word "Nephilim" means giants, but that word may not mean just physical giants. It could have meant spiritual giants, too. In Genesis, Chapter Five, Moses had written about the godly line of Seth. They were men that followed God, and they were clearly the spiritual giants of their days. In fact, they were probably the spiritual giants for all humanity.

If Nephilim could have meant spiritual giants and not physical giants, then the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 changes dramatically. Genesis 5:32 says, "After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth." Genesis 6:1-2 says, "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." Putting the three verses together, without a chapter break, one can see that Noah was five hundred years old and that the "sons of God" and the daughters of men were marrying each other.

In Genesis 6:4, the verse says that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days "and also afterwards." That would imply that they had lived prior to the Flood at the time of the intermarrying and that they were also living after the Flood. Before the Flood, they were the spiritual giants from Genesis, Chapter Five, that were still alive, and after the Flood, they would have been Noah and his son, Shem.

The Descendants of Anak. In Numbers 13:33, the parenthetical expression, "the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim," was used. According to Dr. Sailhamer, that expression did not appear in the Septuagint, so it may not have been in the original text, either [10]. If that is correct, then the expression would have been added later by a scribe, and the Anak may not have actually been descendants of the earlier Nephilim spiritual giants. Note that if something of that nature did happen, then the text of the current-day English Bibles would be an example of a bad translation rather than a legitimate challenge to the errorless nature of Scriptures. In John 10:35, Jesus told some Jewish people that Scripture cannot be broken, and His testimony was true.

Concerning the Nephilim that lived after the Flood, all civilization of that timeframe was born of Noah and his sons. But the godly line only passed through Shem. The people of Anak would have probably been descended from Ham, so the connection between the two uses of Nephilim probably do not show a legitimate relationship. In Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim might have been physical giants or even the very important people of Canaan. But they were probably not spiritual giants, and they were almost definitely not of the same class of Nephilim that were mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Dr. Ronald B. Allen, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, wrote that the word "Nephilim" in Numbers 13:33 may have been hyperbole or exaggeration rather than literal and that the spies may have just felt very small and incapable in the presence of the Canaanites [11].

Understanding the Four Parts. Based on a belief that the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 were really spiritual giants and not physical giants, Parts One, Two, and Four of that verse, which were identified above, would go together, and Part Three would stand alone. That kind of separation of the four parts agrees with Reverend James Orr, Professor of Apologetics and Theology at the Theological College of the United Free Church in Glasgow, Scotland. He wrote that the last part of Genesis 6:4 does not have to be talking about the children that were born. It could have been talking about the Nephilim that were on the earth at that time [12], and if that is true, then the interpretation of Genesis 6:4 and the whole passage is easier to understand.

Based on that reasoning, Genesis 6:4 would be better understood if it were rewritten as, "the Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. When the 'sons of God' went to the daughters of men, they had children by them." The Nephilim would not have been the children being born from the intermarriages, and they would not have been the "sons of God." Instead, they were the godly, spiritual giants that had been discussed in Genesis, Chapter Five that were still alive before the Flood, and they were the godly line of Noah and Shem that lived after the Flood.

According to Dr. McGee, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem were still alive during the timeframe of the last verse of Genesis, Chapter Five and the first four verses of Genesis, Chapter Six [13]. Lamech died five years before the Flood, and Methuselah died in the year of the Flood but not as a result of the Flood. A person can draw that conclusion about Methuselah because he had been a spiritual giant or Nephilim, too. If he had been alive during the Flood, then he would have certainly been on the Ark with Noah and his family, not drowning in the water with the others.

Matthew 24:38 says, "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark." God is not opposed to marriage or to the family unit, but He is opposed to the union of the spiritual with the unspiritual. In II Corinthians 6:14, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" The saved and unsaved should not marry each other because they are serving different masters. But in Genesis 6:1-4, that is exactly what appears to have been happening.

In Genesis 6:4, the children of the godly line of Seth, who were actually the children of the Nephilim, were attracted to and marrying the daughters of the ungodly line of Cain. They were having children together, and their children were becoming more and more wicked with each generation. Instead of the godly line of Seth having had a positive influence on the ungodly line, though, the reverse was happening. So, in Genesis 6:3, God gave the people one hundred and twenty years to repent, and when they did not, He instructed Noah to build the Ark. The Flood was not to only punish the deeds of the wicked, however. It was also to protect and preserve the godly line from Seth through Noah and Shem.

The key to understanding Genesis 6:1-4 is to identify the Nephilims. If they were physical giants, then one can easily conclude that the passage is about angels and women producing a super race. But if one believes that the Nephilim were the spiritual giants from the line of Seth, then the intermarriages in Genesis 6:1-4 were happening among godly and ungodly humans, with the result being very ungodly children.

God would have been upset with either scenario. But the latter belief is more plausible because it is more natural. For the angel view to be correct, then the supernatural act of angels marrying and producing children would have been necessary, while for the human view to be correct, nothing of a supernatural nature would have been required. The more natural aspects of the "sons of God" being of the godly line of Seth view makes that view less spectacular and much more believable.

1. John H. Sailhamer, "Genesis," The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, general editor Frank E. Gaebelein, volume 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), page 78.

2. God, "Old Testament: Genesis," Monarch Notes, 01-01-1963.

3. James Crichton, "sons of God," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume IV (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 2835.

4. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), page 134.

5. Elmer Towns, Theology for Today, (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1989), pages 377-382.

6. J. Vernon McGee, Genesis, Chapters 1-15, volume 1 (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), pages 119-121.

7. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary – Genesis to Deuteronomy, volume I (McLean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company), page 51.

8. Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1986), pages 158-159.

9. Ibid, page 158.

10. Sailhamer, page 79.

11. Ronald B. Allen, "Numbers," The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, general editor Frank E. Gaebelein, volume 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990),page 812.

12. James Orr, "Nephilim," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), page 2133.

13. McGee, page 116.