Genesis 6:1–4 is not an easy text. Those verses talk about the sons of God⎯whether they are human agents or fallen angels⎯as well as the Nephilim. Accordingly, in this post I will provide answers to three questions about the first four verses of Genesis 6. Those three questions are as follows: (1) Who are the sons of God—men or fallen angels? (2) Does the Book of Enoch shed light on the interpretation of these Scriptures? (3) Who are the Nephilim, and what do they have to do with the sons of God?
In providing answers to these questions, I will also explain three basic principles of biblical interpretation. In what follows, there will be three answers and three principles.
I will begin from a posture of humility, cognizant that there are biblically-sound, well-meaning Christians who arrive at different conclusions regarding the meaning of these verses. My goal is not to be contentious or to point a finger at others. What I attempt to do here is equip you with an answer, not the answer. After all, as I shall explain, I don’t think⎯at least superficially⎯that we will be dealing with a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Instead, we will be dealing with peripheral matters. As the apostle Paul instructs us in Romans 14, there will be peripheral matters about which Christians disagree on, and that’s okay. And so, in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty. In all matters, we are called to demonstrate love toward one another and not to put a stumbling block in one another’s way. Consequently, my primary focus here is to equip the reader with some basic interpretive strategies so that when you encounter a difficult text, you will be able to navigate it.
That being said, let’s begin with the Scriptures. Genesis 6:1–4 says:
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
When it comes to identifying the sons of God, there are generally three broad interpretations of who they are. First, they are ordinary men from the line of Seth. Recall that after Cain killed his brother Abel, Adam and Eve had another son, Seth. According to this interpretation, the offspring of Seth followed in the faith of Abel. The second interpretation is that the sons of God are fallen angels. The third interpretation is that they are mythical heroes or kingly tyrants who had children with many women.
How, then, do we determine who the sons of God are? We will begin with the first of three principles of biblical interpretation.
The first principle is this: To determine what a word or phrase means, consider how it is used elsewhere in Scripture.
The exact Hebrew phrase “sons of God” is not exclusive to Genesis 6. The phrase is also used in Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. In Aramaic, the phrase is used in Daniel 3:25. In Job 38, God interrogates Job and asks him, “Where were you when I created the universe?” Thus, in Job 38:7, God asks Job where he was “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” The clear reference here is that “sons of God” refers to angelic beings. Hence, if we exclude its use in Genesis 6, it appears quite plainly that “sons of God” refers to angelic beings in the Old Testament.
Does that now mean we have our answer? By no means. You see, to interpret any text carefully, we must always remember that words are our servants, not our masters. We must think critically and not only discern the most common use of a word but also consider the context in which it is used. This brings me to the second principle.
The second principle of basic biblical interpretation is this: Context determines meaning.
The second principle tells us that, in order to determine what something means in the Bible, we must interpret it in the context in which it is given. We are reading a historical narrative in Genesis 6, so we read it as history. That is, “sons of God” is neither a poetic term nor a figurative expression; it refers to a concrete, defined group.
As stated, context determines meaning. Allow me to use an everyday example to illustrate this point. When I say the word “bank,” what do you think of? Most people think of a place where you keep your money. But bank can also refer to the slope at the edge of a flowing body of water. How do we determine which meaning of bank someone is using? By looking at the context. So if I say, “I’m going to the bank to deposit my check,” I think it’s obvious what bank means. It is also readily obvious when I say, “I’ll meet you at the bank and then we’ll go fishing.” Although bank is most commonly used to mean one thing, you must look at the context.
So what does this have to do with Genesis 6? Because, even though linguistically “sons of God” in the Old Testament overwhelmingly refers to angels, that usage neither makes sense contextually nor logically in Genesis 6.
You see, in Genesis 4, Cain kills Abel. The text then describes Cain’s descendants—an ungodly line who took multiple wives, named cities after themselves, and created their own system of subjective morality. In other words, Genesis 4 describes an ungodly bloodline.
At the end of the chapter, Adam and Eve then have another son, Seth, who has a son called Enosh. The chapter ends (verse 26) by saying that at that time⎯meaning after Enosh was born⎯people began to call upon the name of the Lord. Genesis 5 then traces a bloodline from Adam to Noah. In other words, Genesis 5 describes a godly bloodline.
Accordingly, a few verses into Genesis 6, after children were born to the sons of God and the daughters of men, Scripture says:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:5–12)
Hence, Genesis 4–5 tells us that Cain fathered one line and Seth fathered another. The preceding chapters gave us the names of the patriarchs through whom the worship of God remained pure. Genesis 6 then tells us that their families became corrupt. How? By the mixing of the bloodlines. Consequently, when Genesis 6 is considered in the context of the historical narrative of which it is a part, the sons of God⎯or the human and godly descendants of Seth⎯intermarried with the daughters of men, or the ungodly offspring of Cain. Seth’s offspring did not keep themselves separate in order to preserve the faith; instead, they intermarried with the daughters of the world. The result was a world filled with corruption and violence. This easily explains why, after nine generations, Noah was the sole righteous offspring of Seth left.
Furthermore, in every other instance of the term “sons of God” in the Old Testament, it is used in isolation. But here, in Genesis 6, “sons of God” reveals its fullest meaning when understood in contrast to daughters of men. Again Genesis 6:1–2 says:
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
So, when trying to determine to whom “sons of God” refers, we must also consider the immediate context of the verse in which it is used. Again, what Moses (the author of Genesis) draws our attention to is mixed marriages: those who were called by God and the profane who were strangers to godliness. Hence, the broader context of Genesis 4–6 points to the same interpretation as the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–4. I must then ask the reader a question: Do the negative consequences of mixed marriages sound familiar? It should, because Genesis 6 lays the foundation for the dangers of the children of God marrying the ungodly. The entire history of Israel in the Old Testament repeatedly testifies to this sad reality.
As Matthew Henry comments on this verse:
“Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good man than the good reform the bad.”
In the New Testament, II Corinthians 6:14 says:
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
Moreover, the contrast between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” highlights two features that were amiss in these marriages: first, they chose by sight. Genesis 6:2 says, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful.” That is, their choice was limited to what delighted the eye. (I will discuss the idea of sight and lust in greater detail below.) Second, their poor choice was compounded because they acted without counsel or divine consideration. Genesis 6:2b says, “They took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.”
Additionally, John Calvin comments on Genesis 6:1:
“Moses, then, does not distinguish the sons of God from the daughters of men, because they were of dissimilar nature, or different origin; but because they were sons of God by adoption, whom he had set apart for himself; while the rest remained in their original condition. Should any one object, that they who had shamefully departed from the faith, and the obedience which God required, were unworthy to be accounted the sons of God; the answer is easy, that the honour is not ascribed to them, but to the grace of God, which had hitherto been conspicuous in their families.”
If you missed what Calvin said in the latter part of the quotation, he makes the astute observation that “sons of God” refers to those who were chosen by God. Hence, when Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, it was not because of his performance; rather, it was because he was an object of God’s grace. Being a son of God, then, was a direct result of God’s adoption. This is helpful in answering the question of whether the sons of God were mythical heroes or kingly tyrants. I do not believe the term refers to this group because a man may be regarded as a hero or king without God’s grace. Additionally, attributing the label “sons of God” to mythical heroes or kingly tyrants would not fit the context of these men entering into mixed marriages. If a powerful man of the world married a woman of the world, then they would be equally yoked.
To summarize what has been answered thus far: I am fully persuaded that the sons of God in Genesis 6 were human beings—specifically, descendants of Seth. I have provided biblical evidence to support this assertion. I do not believe that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels. I will now explain further why I am against this interpretation.
If we stick to what the Bible has told us thus far, it was part of God’s purpose for men and women to have children together. All adults know how that works. That is what the Bible explains, and reality validates this design.
Consequently, when it comes to interpreting Bible passages, a guiding principle is that a text cannot mean one thing to its original audience and something entirely different to us today. Certainly, cultures and customs may change, but God’s truth doesn’t. Who would have been the original listening audience of Genesis 6? The Hebrews wandering in the wilderness after the Exodus. Here, then, is a question for those who interpret “sons of God” as angels: If the original audience had access only to Genesis through Deuteronomy⎯and not to Job or Daniel, where the phrase “sons of God” refers to angels⎯where would they have derived the idea that sons of God were fallen spiritual beings?
Furthermore, if “sons of God” refers to angelic beings, how do they procreate? To accept that interpretation, we must assume that angels are both gendered (male) and have a physical form. This contrasts with the rest of the canon, which explains that angels are immaterial spirits (cf. Hebrews 1:14). Moreover, do the so-called angelic sons of God have functional organs capable of producing genetic material? Because if you were to claim that angels married and had intercourse with women, you are making several assumptions for which you will find no proof in the Bible. Thus, in order to accept that “sons of God” are fallen angels, one must first concoct ideas that are alien to Scripture. One must then force that interpretation onto the text in defiance of the evidence that suggests otherwise.
The very idea of immaterial spirits having children with flesh-and-bones women is so incongruous that it is, as John Calvin wrote, “refuted by its own absurdity.” Is not the simpler and more coherent explanation one to which the Bible already attests and everyone already understands: namely, that it takes one man and one woman to get married and have a child?
When the Bible does describe fallen angels directly interacting with people, it does so in terms of witchcraft, sorcery, divination, and demonic possession. That is, the person remains human, but a powerful spiritual force works on, in, or through them.
There is one more piece of evidence I would like the reader to consider. As alluded to previously, I will briefly discuss the idea of sight and lust. Thus, rather than asking who the sons of God are, we must also consider what they are doing. Again, Genesis 6:1–2 says:
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
This is not the first time that the Book of Genesis uses the pattern saw … took. In Genesis 3:6, Eve saw that the forbidden fruit was good for food; then she took it and ate. In Genesis 34:2, when Shechem saw Dinah, he took her by force. In Genesis 38:2, Judah saw a Canaanite woman and took her. The Tenth Commandment forbids us from coveting our neighbor’s possessions (Exodus 20:17). Why mention our neighbor? Because we can see what belongs to them and then covet what seduces our eyes. Do you see the pattern? Saw, took is a recurring biblical pattern in which a person sees something and then lusts after or covets it. The Bible provides recurring evidence that the sin committed in Eden by our first mother⎯Eve⎯is repeated throughout history whenever people (just like us) fall into the trap of coveting what God has forbidden.
I am bringing up this theme of covetousness because, in the broadest application of the principle that context determines meaning, we must interpret any given text in the context of all Scripture. The Bible is repetitive, and Genesis lays the foundation for everything that follows. My point is that identifying the sons of God as descendants of Seth aligns with themes that appear throughout Scripture: temptation, lust, covetousness, fallen human nature, the danger of marrying outside the family of faith, and the tug of the world to turn away from God. What the canon of Scripture makes plain to us is that the root of the problem isn’t spiritual forces on the outside causing evil and corruption; rather, the problem is the deceitfulness of the human heart on the inside. Because we are the problem, there is no scapegoat and no one else to blame. And because we are the problem, we are in desperate need of a Redeemer. This drives us to Christ.
I mentioned at the outset that I did not think⎯at least superficially⎯that one’s interpretation of “sons of God” in Genesis 6 concerns a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Why, then, devote an episode of WCSK to a peripheral matter? Because I believe there is a destructive, hidden danger in interpreting “sons of God” as angels. What is that danger? It is that there is now a scapegoat for sin that says, “Human evil and corruption are not caused by people; they are caused by otherworldly forces.” Thus, someone who doesn’t have a personal, individual sin problem doesn’t need a Savior. They can blame something else because they are not accountable. Getting right with God through Christ, therefore, is no longer of first importance, and Christless redemption becomes a possibility. Subsequently, interpreting “sons of God” as angels may, on the surface, seem like a peripheral matter but when this idea is extended to its logical conclusions, I would invite the reader to consider the dangerous places at which they may arrive. This is a strategy Jesus often employed in His public teaching: in order to discern the reliability of an idea, allow it to lead you all the way to the end of its propositions. Indeed, you may feel comfortable at the outset but sometimes won’t like where you end up.
The third and final principle of basic biblical interpretation is this: Scripture interprets Scripture.
This principle relies on the axiom of Scripture alone, or that the Bible is the only infallible, authoritative source for Christian faith and practice. And because we believe in Scripture alone, it therefore makes sense that Scripture interprets Scripture. That is, because the Bible is its own interpreter, unclear passages should be understood in light of clearer ones. What’s interesting to note here is that there is a book that is not part of the canon of Scripture: the Book of Enoch. Again, the book of Enoch is not part of the biblical cannon; therefore, it is not an infallible and authoritative source for Christian faith and practice. And what does the Book of Enoch say about the sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4? It says that they are angels. In Book 1, Chapter 3, verse 2, it says that the sons of God or angels saw and lusted after women. They then chose wives for themselves, impregnated them, and produced giant offspring. To me, this appears to be a myth that presents a strange doctrine. And what are the results of strange doctrines? Speculations and suppositions that hinder both the administration of God and the nurturing of genuine faith.
Consequently, since the Book of Enoch is not Scripture, I will neither use it as an interpretive tool nor trust what it says when it seemingly attempts to shed light on biblical texts. Therefore, because Scripture interprets Scripture, and in light of all the biblical evidence presented thus far, the mere fact that a nonbiblical source identifies “sons of God” as angels is, in my view, additional evidence that the sons of God are not angels. That answers the second question mentioned at the outset: “Does the Book of Enoch shed light on the interpretation of Genesis 6:1–14?”
I previously mentioned broad themes in the Bible to illustrate that the Scriptures present a coherent and cohesive truth. Hence, there is considerable repetition of themes, there are no outliers, and everything neatly connects to everything else. Accordingly, some argue that the New Testament provides clarity on what Genesis 6 says. This, by the way, is an excellent strategy: using the New Testament to interpret and clarify what may appear unclear in the Old Testament. As Saint Augustine once said, the New Testament is concealed in the Old, and in the New, the Old Testament is revealed. Hence, if you’re using the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, you are off to a good start because you’re using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
On that note, let’s examine the New Testament verses that seem to shed light on Genesis 6:1–4. Proponents of the idea that “sons of God” refers to angels believe that the New Testament explicitly mentions fallen angels committing immorality with women in Second Peter 2 and Jude.
Second Peter 2:4–5 says:
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.
Some Bible readers would say that, to emphasize the certainty of God’s judgment, Peter uses an example with which his audience would have been familiar. He first uses the example of evil angels who were judged for the sin of immorality they committed with women. The apostle then uses an example of those whom God saved (Noah and his family). God, therefore, judges yet also delivers the righteous.
What I would say is that when the apostle writes that angels sinned, he does not specify what sin that was. Hence, when it comes to angels fornicating with women, that interpretation is neither demanded nor necessary based on the text. Certainly, the precise meaning of this text is disputed amongst faithful Christians; accordingly, some understand the sin of the angels to refer to the fall of evil angels before the fall of humanity described in Genesis 3.
Even if there is a debate about the precise meaning of Second Peter 2:4–5, this raises a larger question: What is the apostle’s intent in these verses? That is, because context determines meaning, we must ask: What is Peter’s central point in the overall context of this section? Allow me to zoom out and read II Peter 2:1–10. It says:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.
Did you catch the general theme? The apostle doesn’t primarily concern himself with fallen angels. Rather, he’s saying, “If God judged evil angels and ungodly people in the past, He will certainly judge the wicked now. So, for false teachers in the present, their destruction is not asleep; for the righteous in the present, God will rescue them.” Thus, Peter’s overall concern in this passage is the certainty of judgment and the assurance of those who must presently endure false teachers.
Furthermore, even if one were to hold on to the idea that the angels spoken of refer to the “sons of God” of Genesis 6, what does Peter say happened to those angels? Does he say that they were free to roam, marry, and father children? No. He says they were cast into hell and committed to pits of darkness.
The other New Testament passage often cited by proponents of the view that the “sons of God” were fallen angels comes from Jude. Verses 5–7 say:
Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
There are many different interpretations of these verses, which are admittedly not easy. All I will say about this text is similar to what I said about the passage in II Peter. If we zoom out and ask, “What is Jude’s intent in these verses?” it is clear that he uses three different examples⎯one of the wilderness generation, one of angels, and one of Sodom and Gomorrah⎯to highlight a pattern of privilege, then rebellion, then destruction. This serves as a warning to Jude’s readers not to depart from the faith because, as Jude says at the beginning of the letter, “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
And why did Jude feel the necessity to write? Verse 4 tells us:
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Peter’s concern was false teachers. Jude’s concern was the ungodly who had crept in unnoticed. The overarching message of the passages we have examined is similar: hold fast to God and His Word; reject everything else because there are those who will pervert God’s truth and lead you astray.
Once again, even if one were to hold on to the idea that the angels mentioned in II Peter and Jude refer to the “sons of God” of Genesis 6, we must ask: Why, then, in Genesis are only people judged and not angels and humans? If fallen angels committed immorality with women, why does the text place blame upon men, a collective term for the human race? Genesis 6:5–12 says:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land … God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
As mentioned at the outset, the third and final question I will answer is, “Who are the Nephilim and what do they have to do with the sons of God?”
Again, Genesis 6:4 says:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
So who were the Nephilim? It is often assumed that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. But does the text say that? It doesn’t. What Moses tells us in Genesis 6:4 is that the Nephilim existed before the sons of God had children with the daughters of men. The text says they were on the earth in those days. They were on the earth then and also afterward, when the sons of God had children with the daughters of men. Hence, the Nephilim were a distinct group that was not the product of mixed marriages. In addition, we have another piece of biblical evidence supporting the idea that the Nephilim⎯who filled the earth with violence (see Genesis 6:11)⎯also existed after the Flood.
This is confirmed by Numbers 13:33, which says many generations later, “the sons of Anak were part of the Nephilim.” The only point I will make here is that, using very rough timelines, the gap between Noah’s Flood and the report of Hebrew spies concerning the Nephilim in Numbers was roughly 1,000 years. That is, even if you subscribed to the theory that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, you would still have to explain how they survived the flood and existed some one thousand years later.
So if the Nephilim were not the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, who were they?
It’s crucial to note that in the Hebrew Bible, almost every sentence begins with “and.” This means that if a verse doesn’t begin with “and,” there is a good reason. In Hebrew, the second part of Genesis 6:4 does not begin with “and.” Why is this important? Because Moses is alerting us that the last half of verse 4 functions as a comment or footnote on the first half. Again, Genesis 6:4 says:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them.
Now in Hebrew, here’s the footnote or comment that follows:
Those (or the Nephilim) were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
So, after the text explains to us who the Nephilim were not (the children of mixed marriages), it then explains who they were: mighty men of renown. This footnote will help us to more clearly identify this group without speculating or reaching beyond Scripture.
First, the root of the word Nephilim in Hebrew means “to fall,” which may allude to their ultimate fate (Ezekiel 32:20–28). Second, Genesis 6:4 tells us the Nephilim were mighty men. The same Hebrew phrase is used to refer to Nimrod in Genesis 10:8–11. He was a man characterized by violence, aggressive force, and perversion of dominion. Third, Genesis 6:4 also says that the Nephilim were men of renown—that is, men known for a particular reputation. Synthesizing all this together, I would deduce that the Nephilim were regular human beings, not demigods with evil spirits as their fathers. They were also a people well known for their corruption, violence, and aggression toward others. Were they giants? It’s possible. The Hebrew spies described themselves as grasshoppers in the sight of the Nephilim in Numbers 13:33. Was that an accurate description or an exaggeration based on fear? I do not know. What I am sure of is that the Old Testament doesn’t seem primarily concerned about how tall they were; rather, the emphasis is on their corrupt character.
That concludes this post. I hope you have found this discussion both informative and helpful in your own Bible study. As a general rule, what I have personally found enriching in my own Bible analysis is the axiom: never stop asking the text questions. Of course, that doesn’t mean questioning God but rather digging deeper into the who, what, when, where, and why of the Scriptures. This involves not only weighing individual Scriptures in the balance but comparing them with other passages. What I have found over the years is that once you think you have something “figured out,” you end up realizing you don’t know anything at all.
Dr. C. H. E. Sadaphal