The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm supposed to teach tomorrow on the flood.
At the outset of the text regarding the great flood, I find this passage...

Gen 6:1-2
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
(KJV)

There is a difference of opinion among Bible scholars as to the proper meaning of this text. Frankly, the one suggestion that seems the most systematically correct, seems to me to be almost too odd to accept.

The majority of scholars (many well respected ones at that) tend to think that the "sons of God" refers to fallen angels. They point out that the only times the particular Hebrew phrase that it's translated from are ever used in the OT, it refers to angelic beings (the only exception being Daniel 3 when the 4ht person in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace appears). In Jude and in one of Peter's epistles, fallen angels that were punished and chained in darkness are mentioned in connection with the times of Noah.

The objection has been raised that these angels could not have done such a thing as to be sexually intimate with human women since they are not sexual beings. Jesus himself said that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. However, he did indicate that there is a difference between the angels he spoke of and those in question here. He says that it is the angels "in heaven" that do not marry nor are given in marriage. Jude also lends credence to this idea of these sons of God being angelic. He says that the angels "left their proper dwelling".....this is of course indicative of an angelic falling away. Could it be that they took on the form of men and were able to do such things as is suggested?
Some have said that the blending of the sons of God and the daughters of men formed giants. The verse doesn't really read like that though...as you see...

Gen 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
(KJV)

Unless it's a fuzzy translation. The giants don't seem to necessarily be the "men of old, men of renown". It could easily be two different beings. The giants (HEB - nephilims) literally means fallen ones. So I have no trouble in thinking that this means fallen angels. But I don't think the text forces us to assume that the two described are one and the same.

I am still undecided as to what I believe. Systematically there is a good case for these sons of God being angels, but it doesn't ring a bell of truth to me really.

Any thoughts on this?

I am still undecided as to what I believe. Systematically there is a good case for these sons of God being angels, but it doesn't ring a bell of truth to me really.
Any thoughts on this?

There are a lot of problems with the idea of demons having sexual relations with humans.

1. They don't have physical bodies nor the creative power to make them. Perhaps angels can manifest bodies by God's power, since it seems they do appear in human bodies throughout the bible. But I think they are primarily spiritual (non-corporeal) beings.

2. Where do they get the "equipment" to do this with, since they don't procreate as far as I can tell in the bible, and they don't marry nor are they given in marriage, as Jesus says?

3. If they did have this "equipment", how do they get the DNA that will successfully combine with human DNA (let alone sperm to carry it) to create half human half angel/demon beings? God created the creatures on earth, without exception to reproduce "after their kind", so I am not sure why angels would be an exception.

4."Nephilim", when comparing scripture with scripture seems to refer to "giants" more than to "fallen ones". In the other verse that the word is used in, it is said by the people that saw them " we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (Num 13:33).

5.The text doesn't actually say that these nephilim were the result of the the sons of God reproducing w/ the daughters of man, as you pointed out.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

It just says that at that time, (that there were giants in the earth), the son of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. The result of this union was the mighty men of renown etc..


While the exact phase "sons of God" may be used primarily of angels, the phrase is only used in Job (and Dan 3), which sounds less substantial than "all the times it's ever used in the OT".

Israel is often called the "children of God" (which we can become per Jn 1:12), "son" (Ex. 4:22-23) and "sons of the living God" (Hos. 1:10b).

Here are a few excerpts from commentators:

John Wesley:

Gen 6:2 - The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at.

Geneva bible notes:

Gen 6:2 - That the (a) sons of God saw the daughters (b) of men that they [were] (c) fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

(a) The children of the godly who began to degenerate.

(b) Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain.

(c) Having more respect for their beauty and worldly considerations than for their manners and godliness.

Albert Barnes:

The phrase “sons of God,” means an order of intelligent beings who “retain the purity of moral character” originally communicated, or subsequently restored, by their Creator. They are called the sons of God, because they have his spirit or disposition. The sons of God mentioned in Job_38:7, are an order of rational beings existing before the creation of man, and joining in the symphony of the universe, when the earth and all things were called into being. Then all were holy, for all are styled the sons of God. Such, however, are not meant in the present passage. For they were not created as a race, have no distinction of sex, and therefore no sexual desire; they “neither marry nor are given in marriage” Mat_22:30. It is contrary to the law of nature for different species even on earth to cohabit in a carnal way; much more for those in the body, and those who have not a body of flesh. Moreover, we are here in the region of humanity, and not in the sphere of superhuman spirits; and the historian has not given the slightest intimation of the existence of spiritual beings different from man.

John Gill:

...those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated...but rather this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Gen_4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace...

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

the sons of God saw the daughters of men — By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.

I would just present the evidence for both views if I were you, and let your class weigh it themselves. No need to feel like you have to give the final word on the subject. Good luck!!

God bless,

Thanks Derek!
Thanks a billion.
Those areas you've adressed...Some of which I hadn't previously considered are some of the reasons that the 'angel' theory didn't always ring real true to me. I guess I didn't realize that the only places it occured were in Job. I bet I've heard or read 6 or 7 commentaries on that and no one seems to want to bring that to light.

Thanks again - you've been very helpful.

I added this while you were typing

4."Nephilim", when comparing scripture with scripture seems to refer to "giants" more than to "fallen ones". In the other verse that the word is used in, it is said by the people that saw them " we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (Num 13:33).

Thanks again - you've been very helpful.

You're welcome brother!

God bless you,

hey, if you're interested, i wrote on this subject to...

http://knewkingdom.blogspot.com/2005/06 ... hilim.html

Thanks Matt....I'm in the middle of it right now...you guys are making this lesson a lot easier to study for. I wasn't really looking forward to explaining this strange passage, but now I'm thinking I'll be a little better equipped.

Good article Matt!