Genesis 6:1-4:
Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God [בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, or sons of the gods, i.e. supernatural beings] saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves [וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, lit. they take to themselves women (Young’s Literal Translation.)], whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with man forever, because he is also flesh; nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God [בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, or sons of the gods, i.e. supernatural beings] came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
(New American Standard Bible.) [1.]
Three Possible Views.
John Walton:
This issue is one of the thorniest in Old Testament interpretation. …The earliest view, held unanimously until the second century A.D. as far as we know, is that “the sons of God” were angelic beings. In this view there is a material distinction between “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men,” and the offense is the transgression of boundaries.
…In the second and third centuries, both Jewish Interpreters and Christian interpreters began to diverge from this consensus, but in different directions. Jewish commentators took the path of identifying “the sons of God” as rulers. Christian commentators beginning with Julius Africanus promoted the view that “the sons of God” were men from the line of Seth while “the daughters of men” were women from the line of Cain. This view entered the mainstream in Augustine’s City of God and soon became the Christian interpretation. It remained so through the Reformation and into the nineteenth century.
(John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011], on Gen. 6:1-4, §. Identity of the Sons of God, p. 291.) Preview.
Bruce K. Waltke:
All three interpretations can be defended from the Hebrew grammar.
(Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], pp. 115-116.)
(a.) Angelic Beings.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Gordon J. Wenham:
The “angel” interpretation is at once the oldest view and that of most modern commentators. It is assumed in the earliest Jewish exegesis (e.g., the books of 1 Enoch 6:2ff; Jubilees 5:1), LXX, Philo De Gigant 2:358), Josephus (Ant. 1.31) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QapGen 2:1; CD 2:17-19). …the earliest Christian writers (e.g., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen) also take this line.
Modern scholars who accept this view advance three main reasons for supporting it. First, elsewhere in the OT (e.g., Ps 29:1, Job 1:6) “sons of God” refers to heavenly, godlike creatures. Second, in 6:1-4 the contrast is between “the sons of the gods” on the one hand and “the daughters of man” on the other. The alternative interpretations presuppose that what Gen 6 really meant was that “the sons of some men” married “the daughters of other men.” The present phrase “sons of God” is, to say the least, an obscure way of expressing such an idea. It is made the more implausible by 6:1 where “man” refers to all mankind. It is natural to assume that in v 2 “daughters of man” has an equally broad reference, not a specific section of the human race. Finally, it is pointed out that in Ugaritic literature “sons of God” refers to members of the divine pantheon, and it is likely that Genesis is using the phrase in a similar sense.
(Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], p. 139.) [2.]
(ii.) The argument against.
Andrew E. Steinmann:
However, this interpretation is not without problems. It introduces angels into Genesis with hardly any prior discussion of them apart from the cherubim who guarded the way to the tree of life (3:24). Moreover, in the New Testament Jesus clearly teaches that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:29-30; Mark 12:24-25; Luke 20:34-36). It could also be added that although the Scriptures at times speak of angels appearing as humans, they never depict them as having bodies that function like those of humans: they do not eat, drink or sleep. It is hard, therefore, to conceive of them mating as humans do. Moreover, Hendel has noted that ‘The sexual mixing of gods and mortals is unattested elsewhere in West Semitic lore’, thereby casting doubt upon the supposed mythological background behind this text. Finally, it ought to be observed that this intermarriage of the sons of God and daughters of mankind contributes to God’s judgment on humanity (vv. 3, 5-7). Since these marriages were initiated by the sons of God, it seems incongruous that God would judge humankind on the basis of what angels did.
(Andrew E. Steinmann, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Genesis, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2019), p. 83.) Preview. [3.]
(b.) The Godly Line of Seth and the Ungodly Line of Cain.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Kenneth A. Mathews:
Church Fathers, such as Augustine, as well as the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) interpreted the “sons of God” as a reference to “godly men,” that is, the righteous lineage of Seth. …We already have shown how chaps. 4 and 5 contrast the two lines of descent from Adam—the Cainites and Sethites. Genesis 6:1-8 relates how the two lines intermarry, resulting in a community of unprecedented wickedness. The flood account, we have shown, is actually embedded within the Sethite genealogy, which is not completed until the notice of Noah’s death (9:29). This provides the appropriate interpretive key for understanding 6:1-8. During this period of amazing Sethite expansion (chap. 5), the Sethite family marries outside its godly heritage, which results in moral decline.
ʾĔlōhīm can be rendered as a genitive of quality, meaning “godly sons,” referring to the heritage of the Sethites.[fn. 107: This genitive use attributes a quality or condition to the construct so as to represent or characterize that person. The occurrence of this use is well attested with בֵּן (GKC § 128s-v).] …bĕnê hāʾĕlōhīm has analogues pointing to human referents.[fn. 108: Since בְנֵי־אֱלֹהִים cannot refer to physical descent, i.e., the angels are not physically generated, then we must take “sons of God” as metaphorical regardless of referent. It follows, then, that the expression can be applied to more than angels, i.e., any who “bear the image of God” (see Keil, Pentateuch, 128-29).] Also important is the weight of the Pentateuch’s testimony, which identifies the Israelites as the children of God (e.g., Deut 14:1; 32:5-6; cf. Exod 4:2; Pss 73:15; 80:15); this resonates well with taking the “sons of God” in 6:2 as an allusion to godly (covenant) offspring (cf. also Isa 43:6; Hos 1:10; 11:1; John 1:12-13).
(Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26: Vol. 1A, [Nashville: B&H, 1996], pp. 329-330.) Preview. [4.]
Cf. John Murray, Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991], pp. 244-247.
(ii.) The argument against.
Derek Kidner:
…while the Old Testament can declare God’s people to be his sons,[fn. 3: Dt. 14:1; Is. 1:2; Ho. 1:10 (MT 2:1).] the normal meaning of the actual term ‘sons of God’ is ‘angels’,[fn. 4: Jb. 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dn. 3:25.] and nothing has prepared the reader to assume that ‘men’ now means Cainites only. Possible New Testament support for ‘angels’ may be seen in 1 Peter 3:19, 20; also in 2 Peter 2:4-6, where the fallen angels, the flood, and the doom of Sodom form a series that could be based on Genesis, and in Jude 6, where the angels’ offence is that they left their proper habitation. The craving of demons for a body, evident in the Gospels, offers at least some parallel to this hunger for sexual experience.
(Derek Kidner, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Genesis, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967], pp. 84.) [5.]
Michael S. Heiser:
…this view forces two divergent meanings on the Hebrew word ʾadam in Genesis 6:1–2: the term would have to mean “mankind” in Genesis 6:1, but a specific group of humans—the Cainites—in Genesis 6:2.
(Michael S. Heiser, “Genesis 6 and the Sons of God;” In the online edition of the: Faithlife Study Bible, gen. ed. John D. Barry, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012].) [6.]
(c.) Kings or Rulers.
(i.) The argument in favor.
Kaiser, Davids, Bruce & Brauch:
(1) The ancient Aramaic Targums render “sons of God” as “sons of nobles” (Targums of Onkelos), and the Greek translation of Symmachus reads “the sons of the kings or lords.” (2) The word gods (Hebrew elōhı̂m is used in Scripture for men who served as magistrates or judges (“Then his master must take him before the judges [elōhı̂m],” Exodus 21:6; see also Exodus 22:8; Psalm 82:1, 6). (3) Structurally, the account of the Cainite Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24) and that of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are very much alike. In each there is the taking of wives, the bearing of children and the dynastic exploits. The former passage ends with a boast of judgment by Lamech, and the other ends with God’s decree of judgment. Lamech practiced bigamy (Genesis 4:19), and he enforced his policies by using tyranny. The portraits are parallel and depict states of tyranny, corruption and polygamy. (4) Near Eastern discoveries have validated the pagan use of all sorts of gods’ and goddesses’ names in order to give more clout and prestige to the governments of Egypt and Mesopotamia—hence the title “sons of God.”
The fifth and final line of evidence concerns the nep̄ilı̂m/gibbôrı̄m of Genesis 6:4. The word nep̄ilı̂m occurs only here and in Numbers 13:33, where it refers to the Anakim, who were people of great stature. The root meaning of the word nep̄ilı̂m is “to fall.” However in Genesis 6:4 the nep̄ilı̂m are associated with the term gibbôrı̄m. The word gibbôrı̄m comes from gibbôr meaning “a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth or power.” Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8, was such a gibbôr. He also was clearly a king in the land of Shinar. Hence the meaning of nep̄ilı̂m/gibbôrı̄m is not “giants,” but something more like “princes,” “aristocrats” or “great men.”
(Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996], p. 108.) [7.]
Cf. Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 185-189. Preview.
(ii.) The argument against.
Michael S. Heiser:
First, the text of Genesis 6 never says the marriages were polygamous. That idea must be read into the passage. Second, ancient parallels restrict divine sonship language to kings. Consequently, the idea of a group of sons of God lacks a coherent ancient Near Eastern parallel. The precise plural phrase. refers to divine beings elsewhere in the Old Testament, not kings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6 [cf. 82:1b]; 89:6 [Hebrew: 89:7]).[fn. 8: The divinized kingship view is also defended by contending that there are no examples in ancient Near Eastern materials of divine beings “marrying” human women, while there are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry from gods and humans. This of course presumes Gen 6:1-4 is describing matrimonial unions. This is playing word games, since the “marriage” idea derives from English translations. The word translated “wife” is simply the normal plural for “women” (nashim). The biblical euphemisms of “taking” (Gen 6:2) or “going in to” a woman (Gen 6:4) are not exclusively used for marriage. They are also used to describe the sexual act outside a marriage bond. That is, “taking” a woman can describe an illicit sexual relationship (Gen 38:2; Lev 18:17; 20:17, 21; 21:7), as can “coming/going in to” (Gen 38:2; 39:14; Lev 21:11; Judg 16:1; Amos 2:7). The point of the language of Gen 6:1-4 is a sexual relationship, not matrimony. This objection is therefore a distinction without a difference. This view also fails logically. The objection about the lack of divine-human marriages is aimed at eliminating the divine element from Gen 6:1-4, thus reducing the episode to purely human relationships (albeit with divine kings as focus). But on what logical basis would multiple marriages between kings and women bring the world into chaos, necessitating God’s judgment in a catastrophic flood?]
(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 96.) [8.]
Conclusion.
Victor P. Hamilton:
Suffice it to say, it is impossible to be dogmatic about the identification of “sons of God” here. The best one can do is to consider the options. While it may not be comforting to the reader, perhaps it is best to say that the evidence is ambiguous and therefore defies clear-cut identifications and solutions.
(Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990], p. 265.) Preview. [9.]
Derek Kidner:
More important than the detail of this episode is its indication that man is beyond self-help, whether the Seth-ites have betrayed their calling, or demonic powers have gained a stranglehold.
(Derek Kidner, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Genesis, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967], pp. 84.)
PostScript — A Tentative Solution?
Bruce K. Waltke:
The interpretation that sees this designation as referring to royal tyrannical successors of Lamech finds historical support in an ancient Jewish interpretation that the “sons of God” were nobles, aristocrats, and princes who married girls outside their social status and took great numbers of them into their harems. …This interpretation best explains “any of them they chose” (6:2). For example, Pharaoh took to bed whom he would (12:10–20), and so did David (2 Sam. 11). It also fits the immediate context of the Flood, the theme of Genesis, and connects the reference to the Nephilim and heroes in 6:4 to 6:1–3. However, the meaning “divine rulers” is somewhat questionable, whereas “angels” is well established. …The best solution is to combine the “angelic” interpretation with the “divine king” view. The tyrants were demon possessed. Gispen avers: “The text presents us with men who are controlled by fallen angels.”[fn. 26: W. H. Gispen, Genesis I: Kommentaar op het Oude Testament (Kampen: J. H. Kok), 221, cited favorably by VanGemeren, “The Sons,” 348.] Their perverted psyches allowed this entrance of the demonic. Eichrodt asserts, “God’s power operates … within the evil which has been begun by the perversion of the creature’s will.”[fn. 27: Eichrodt, Theology, 2:179.]
(Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], pp. 116-117.) [10.]
Cf. Meredith G. Kline:
Indeed, this is how the demonic dimension should be incorporated into the interpretation of the passage if one concludes that 1 Peter 3:19,20 and Jude 6 refer to the involvement of demons in the episode recorded in Genesis 6. That is, demons should not, then, be substituted for the human kings in the reconstruction of the event but rather the demonic element should be kept in subordination to the fundamental reality of the earth rulers’ revolt against heaven. It could be accounted for in terms of the phenomenon of demon-possession in the experience of “the sons of the gods,” or of some such extraordinary working of demons through them (cf. 2 Thess 2:9). In that case, Satan will have intruded himself into the history of the world that then was both at its outset and at its culmination through acts of preternatural entry into other creatures.
(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], p. 187.) Preview.
Endnotes.
“The sons of the gods” or “the sons of God.” בני־האלהים could be translated either way. Job 1:6; 2:1 lend support to the latter, while Pss 29:1; 89:7 make the former possible.
(Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], p. 139.)Cf. Genesis 6:2:
The divine beings saw how beautiful these human women were, so they married the ones they chose.
Cf. Genesis 6:2:
More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted.
(Contemporary English Version.)
Cf. Genesis 6:2:
some of the heavenly beings saw that these young women were beautiful, so they took the ones they liked.
Cf. Genesis 6:2:
some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them.
(International Standard Version.)
Cf. Genesis 6:2:
Now a population explosion took place upon the earth. It was at this time that beings from the spirit world looked upon the beautiful earth women and took any they desired to be their wives.
That “sons of God” are a nonhuman, godlike/angelic/demonic species is an ancient view and a common one at that: the LXX (Vaticanus contains ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, angeloi tou theou; the Alexandrinus corrects υἱοὶ, huioi, to ἄγγελοι; the LXX also has ἄγγελοι θεοῦ for “sons of God” (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים) in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; and Dan 3:25. Philo (Giants 2.6), Josephus (Ant. 1.31; 1.73), 2 En. 18.3-8; 2 Bar. 56.11-14; and the DSS (1Qap Genar 2:1, 16; CD 2:17-19) also hold to this interpretation, as well as Justin (Second Apology 5), Irenaeus (Haer. 4.36), Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor 3.2), and Tertullian (On the Veiling of Virgins 7), among others. “Sons of god” in the OT may stand for heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps 29:1; 82:6; 89:6-7; Dan 3:25; etc.)...
(Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014], p. 103 fn. 45.) Preview.
Note: Kuruvilla does not advocate this solution. Cf. Abraham Kuruvilla: ‘However, there has been no mention of any angels in Scripture up to this point; moreover, angels do not marry (Matt 22:29-30/ Mark 12:24–25/Luke 20:34-36). Also, the phrase “they took wives for themselves” is a fairly standard expression for normal marriage in the OT (Gen 11:29; Jdg 3:6; 2 Sam 5:13; 1 Chr 14:3; 23:22; etc.); no bizarre super-human conjugal relationship is implied by in the phrase.’ (Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014], p. 103 fn. 45.) Preview.
Cf. John Phillips:
The expression “sons of God” (“sons of Elohim”) occurs only four times in other parts of the Old Testament. It occurs three times in the book of Job (1:6; 2:1) where we read of “the sons of God” presenting themselves before God, Satan being in their midst. Evidently in that context the sons of God are angelic beings. It occurs again in Job 38:7 where we read that, at the creation of the world, the morning stars sang together and that the sons of God shouted for joy. Again the sons of God are evidently suprahuman beings. The other reference is in Daniel where we are told of Nebuchadnezzar that he saw four men walking in his burning, fiery furnace. He recognized three of them as his human victims. The fourth was “like a son of God” (in that case it was God the Son in one of His preincarnate appearances), again a supernatural being.
The use of the title “sons of God” in the Old Testament, then, is confined to angelic beings and to Christ. In the Septuagint version of the Scriptures the expression “sons of God” is invariably translated “the angels of God.” The term “sons of Elohim” seems to be confined to those who are directly created by God’s volition rather than to beings born of their own order. It is that characteristic that, as much as anything, distinguishes between the angels and men. In the Old Testament a kindred expression is used, “sons of Jehovah,” and that would have been an ideal expression to use in Genesis 6, had it been the intention in that passage simply to differentiate between Cain’s descendants and Seth’s. In fact, it would have been a particularly appropriate expression because Genesis 4:26 records that, since the days of Enos, men had begun to call upon “the name of Jehovah.” Instead of using the expression “sons of Jehovah,” however, the text uses an expression elsewhere reserved in the Old Testament as descriptive of supernatural beings.
(John Phillips, Exploring Genesis, [Chicago: Moody Press, 1981], p. 79 fn. 4.)
Cf. R. Davidson:
From the time of the Aramaic Targums onwards, misplaced piety has led commentators to side-step the plain meaning of the text. Attempts have been made to explain the sons of the gods as nobility or royalty or the true worshippers of God. By all Old Testament analogy the sons of the gods can only mean one thing, divine beings. In Job 1 : 6 and 2: 1 the same phrase is translated by the N.E.B. the members of the court of heaven. This meaning was recognized in early Jewish tradition in Jubilees 5:1 and Enoch 6:2 and probably in the New Testament in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Further, the daughters of men cannot mean anything other than mortal women. Such stories of sexual intercourse between gods and mortal women are common enough in religious mythology. In Canaanite mythology, as it is known to us from the Ugaritic texts, El, the supreme god, seduces two women and begets the twin gods Dawn and Evening. Nor is it strange that such a story should be used to explain the existence on earth of a race of supermen, the Nephilim (verse 4). Nephilim is a word of very uncertain meaning. In Num. 13: 33, the only other Old Testament reference, the Nephilim are men of gigantic size who make the Hebrew incomers to Canaan feel ‘no bigger than grasshoppers’.
(R. Davidson, The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: Genesis 1-11, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1973], p. 69.) Return to Article.But could angels have had carnal intercourse with human women? According to Bereshith rabba, c. 26, R. Simeon b. Jochai pronounced an anathema upon all who should understand בני האלהים of angels (though the Sohar makes him affirm it himself); Augustine (civ. Dei, xv. 23) advises rather to relinquish the apocryphal fable; Jerome reserves his judgment; Cyril of Alexandria reckons this opinion among the ἀτοπώτατα; Theodoret calls its advocates ἐμβρόντητοι καὶ ἄγαν ἠλίθιοι (Quæst. in Gen. § 47); Philastrius numbers it among the heresies; the ancient Protestant interpreters regard it as a Jewish Platonizing fancy.
(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Vol. XXXVI, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], p. 223.) Return to Article.
This interpretation might raise the problem of reading “men” differently in 6:1 and 6:2—in the first case generically of mankind, and in the second as referring to those of Cain’s lineage, which in itself, is not a problem, for they too are part of generic mankind. In Jdg 20:3, the sons of Benjamin are contrasted with the sons of Israel, but the former are part of Israel; in Jer 32:20, the Israelites are contrasted with the rest of humankind, but, of course, the former are humans, too; and, likewise, in Ps 73:5, the wicked are contrasted with the remainder of mankind. Thus the “sons of God” are human followers of God, distinct from the rest of mankind who are non-God followers.[fn. 44: However, one could see both occurrences of “men” in 6:1-2 as equally having the generic sense, with the Sethite “sons of God” simply failing to show covenantal discrimination in their choice of spouses (as in Gen 24:3-4; 26:34, 35; 27:46; 28:1-3, 6-8; 34). Rather, they made their selection based on their own whims and fancies—“whomever they chose” (6:2). Or it could also be argued that “men,” both in 6:1 and 6:2, is similarly restrictive, indicating, in both cases, Cainites: they multiplied, and had daughters who married the “sons of God.”] There is no necessity to see “sons of God” as being non-human; they are labeled differently simply to distinguish them from the other, presumably ungodly, folks. The attribute “of God" (in בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, bne-ha’elohim) is thus, essentially, a genitive of quality (= “godly sons”). These individuals are godly/covenant offspring (as in Exod 4:22, 23; Deut 14:1; 32:5, 6, 18, 19; Ps 73:15; 82:6; Isa 1:2; 11:1; 43:6; 45:11; Jer 3:14, 19; 31:9, 20; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; Mal 1:6; John 1:12-13). The striking contrast between the pietistic elements in Seth’s family on the one hand (the result of Seth’s birth and his taking the place of Abel, 4:25-26; the pointed mention of Seth’s “image” and “likeness,” 5:3; his descendants: Enoch, 5:23-24; Lamech, 5:28-31; Noah, 6:8; and even the placement of Gen 6 after the introduction of the Sethites and Noah in Gen 5), and the humanistic characters in Cain’s line, on the other hand, leads one to see godliness as the key distinction between the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in 6:1. Historically, this is the interpretation that has been followed by Julius Africanus (Chronicles 2), Chrysostom (Hom. Gen. 22.2), Augustine (City of God 15.23), Luther (Lectures on Genesis Chapter 6-14), and Calvin (Comm. Gen. 1.237-238).
(Abraham Kuruvilla, Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2014], pp. 103-104.) Preview. Return to Article.First, Genesis 4:26 never says the only people who “called on the name of the Lord” were men from Seth’s lineage. That idea is imposed on the text. Second, as we’ll see in the next chapter, the view fails miserably in explaining the Nephilim. Third, the text never calls the women in the episode “daughters of Cain.” Rather, they are “daughters of humankind.” There is no actual link in the text to Cain. This means that the Sethite view of the text is supported by something not present in the text, which is the very antithesis of exegesis. Fourth, there is no command in the text regarding marriages or any prohibition against marrying certain persons. There are no “Jews and Gentiles” at this time. Fifth, nothing in Genesis 6:1-4 or anywhere else in the Bible identifies people who come from Seth’s lineage with the descriptive phrase “sons of God.” That connection is purely an assumption through which the story is filtered by those who hold the Sethite view.
(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 94-95.) Return to Article.But in spite of the fact that Moses elsewhere calls God’s chosen people his children (Deut 14:1; 32:5-6), the problems with this view are:
1. It forces two different meanings on “man” in 6:1-2.
2. It does not account for the lineages of Adam’s other children (5:4).
3. Scripture nowhere else calls Seth’s lineage “sons of God.”
(Michael Carr Whitworth, The Epic of God: A Guide to Genesis, [Bowie: Start2Finish Books, 2012], p. 63.)
Franz Delitzsch:
The following reasons however are decisive against this ethic comprehension of the two notions. (1) Though the notion of the fatherhood of God does indeed make a faint start towards obtaining beyond its theocratic limitation to Israel (Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1, xxxii. 5; Hos. ii. 1) an ethical and general human significance (see especially Ps. lxxiii. 15, not however Prov. xiv. 26, which must be explained according to Prov. xx. 7 and the like), yet this extension and deepening goes neither in the Old nor the New Testament so far, that בני האלהים and בני האדם could in the prosaic style of historic writing mean children of God and daughters of worldly men. Such a view is here refuted. by the context itself, for (2) after האדם has been used in ver. 1 of the human race without any secondary meaning, it is inconceivable that on בנות האדם should signify women belonging to that portion of mankind which was alienated from God, and not to the human race in general.
(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library: Vol. XXXVI, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], p. 224.)
Cf. Victor P. Hamilton:
In response we observe that while sons of God is indeed an enigmatic phrase, and appears here for the first time in the OT, notes about godliness abound in the context (4:26; 5:24, 29). Furthermore, the OT does not lack instances of a shift from a generic to a specific use of a word in one context.[fn. 10: Examples provided by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols., vol. 1: The Pentateuch, tr. J. Martin, 3 vols. repr. in 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 1:130-31.] Thus, ādām as “mankind” in v. 1 and as “Cainites” in v. 2 is not impossible.
(Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990], p. 264.) Preview.
Cf. Victor P. Hamilton:
It is possible, however, to reverse this identification and see the daughters of men as Sethites and the sons of God as Cainites (really “Eveites”). For example, the birth of daughters occurs only among the Sethites of ch. 5. Again, the taking of wives for oneself (6:2) is paralleled by the Cainite Lamech (4:19). Could it be that here we have a replay of Gen. 3? As Eve the initiator led Adam astray, so the sons of God led astray the daughters of men.
(Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990], p. 265.) Preview.
Cf. C. F. Keil:
Again, the antithesis “sons of God” and “daughters of men” does not prove that the former were angels. It by no means follows, that because in ver. 1 האדם denotes man as a genus, i.e., the whole human race, it must do the same in ver. 2, where the expression “daughters of men” is determined by the antithesis “sons of God.” And with reasons existing for understanding by the sons of God and the daughters of men two species of the genus האדם, mentioned in ver. 1, no valid objection can be offered to the restriction of האדם, through the antithesis Elohim, to all men with the exception of the sons of God; since this mode of expression is by no means unusual in Hebrew. “From the expression ‘daughters of men,’” as Dettinger observes, “it by no means follows that the sons of God were not men; any more than it follows from Jer. xxxii. 20, where it is said that God had done miracles ‘in Israel, and among men,’ or from Isa. xliii. 4, where God says He will give men for the Israelites, or from Judg. xvi. 7, where Samson says, that if he is bound with seven green withs he shall be as weak as a man, for from Ps. lxxiii. 5, where it is said of the ungodly they are not in trouble as men, that the Israelites, or Samson, or the ungodly, were not men at all. In all these passages אדם (men) denotes the remainder of mankind in distinction from those who are especially named.” Cases occur, too, even in simple prose, in which the same term is used, first in a general, and then directly afterwards in a more restricted sense. We need cite only one, which occurs in Judg. xix.-xxi. In chap. xix. 30 reference is made to the coming of the children of Israel (i.e., of the twelve tribes) out of Egypt; and directly afterwards (chap. xx. 1, 2) it is related that “all the children of Israel,” “all the tribes of Israel,” assembled together (to make war, as we learn from vers. 3 sqq., upon Benjamin); and in the whole account of the war, chap. xx. and xxi., the tribes of Israel are distinguished from the tribe of Benjamin: so that the expression “tribes of Israel” really means the rest of the tribes with the exception of Benjamin. And yet the Benjamites were Israelites. Why then should the fact that the sons of God are distinguished from the daughters of men prove that the former could not be men? There is not force enough in these two objections to compel us to adopt the conclusion that the sons of God were angels.
(C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Volume I: The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1885], pp. 130-131.) Return to Article.6:2. sons of God. The term “sons of God” is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to angels, but the idea of sonship to God is also portrayed corporately for the Israelites and individually for kings. In the ancient Near East kings were commonly understood as having a filial relationship to deity and were often considered to have been engendered by deity.
6:2. marrying whom they chose. The practice of marrying “any of them they chose” has been interpreted by some to be a reference to polygamy. While it is not to be doubted that polygamy was practiced, it is difficult to imagine why that would be worthy of note, since polygamy was an acceptable practice even in Israel in Old Testament times. It is more likely that this is a reference to the “right of the first night,” cited as one of the oppressive practices of kings in the *Gilgamesh Epic. The king could exercise his right, as representative of the gods, to spend the wedding night with any woman who was being given in marriage. This presumably was construed as a *fertility rite. If this is the practice referred to here, it would offer an explanation of the nature of the offense.
…6:4. Nephilim. Nephilim is not an ethnic designation but a description of a particular type of individual. In Numbers 13:33 they are identified, along with the descendants of Anak, as some of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. The latter are described as giants, but there is no reason to consider the Nephilim to be giants. It is more likely that the term describes heroic warriors, perhaps the ancient equivalent of knights errant.
(John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, [Downers Grove InterVarsity Press, 2000], p. 36.) Preview. Return to Article.6:2 sons of God. Royal titles of the ancient Near East regularly suggested the divine descent of kings, even outside Egypt’s context of deified kings. This idea of divine descent was a rhetorical expression of the divine election and legitimization of the king and is typical in royal inscriptions. Throughout the Biblical period it was part of the royal prerogative to claim divine heritage. Thus the title “son of God” can be identified as a royal motif both in the Bible and outside of it. Gilgamesh is portrayed as two-thirds god and one-third man (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (Gilgamesh Epic, 9.49). Nevertheless, though it is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, there is no precedent for ancient kings as a group being referred to as “sons of god.” …married any of them they chose. There are no examples from Akkadian or Northwest Semitic mythological texts of divine beings marrying or cohabiting with human women, so it would be difficult to make the claim that this account is a vestige of ancient mythology as some do. There are examples of kings claiming mixed ancestry of gods and humans…but that is a different concept. If the “sons of God” are viewed as kings, the question remains as to what offense they are committing here. Polygamy has always been a weak candidate since the OT does not condemn it. Promiscuity is likewise an unlikely explanation since the Hebrew text describes the situation using the standard idiom for marriage (“taking wives”). An alternate understanding may be found in a practice noted in the Gilgamesh Epic as the prime example of Gilgamesh’s tyranny, namely, his exercising the right of the first night with a new bride: “He will couple with the wife-to-be, he first of all, the bridegroom after” (Gilgamesh Epic, Old Babylonian version, v.159-60). This practice accommodates the marriage terminology, and in Gilgamesh it is clearly both oppressive and offensive behavior. The remaining problem is that this practice is infrequently attested in ancient literature.
(NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, gen. eds. John Walton, Craig Keener, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016], n. on Gen. 6:2, p. 17.) Return to Article.Many interpreters come out dogmatically in favor of one of the above views, but in light of all the evidence it seems impossible to do so.
(Howard F. Vos, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, [Chicago: Moody Press, 1999], p. 44.) Preview. Return to Article.SN The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, vene haʾelohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.
(NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019], p. 17 fn. I.) See also: biblegateway.com. Return to Article.καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment