Bad men, Angels, and Giants - PART 1 (Genesis 6)

Disclaimer: When teaching Bible, so often we focus on the few phrases, or topics that catch OUR (the audience) attention, rather than the points which the text (God) emphasizes. This blog post is going to follow that trend to the letter - I apologize. I will try to write a post about the whole passage later, so the text can be dealt with in a better way. Because, Bad men, Angels, and Giants are NOT, and may I repeat myself NOT God's point for Genesis 6 - they are cultural background issues, which we don't understand, so we get all caught up in understanding them, RATHER than what God is communicating... Ok, I'll begin now. :)



"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose (Gen 6:1-2, ESV)."

There are three basic views as to who/what the "sons of God" are.

I. Descendants of Seth. This view says that the "sons of God" are the descendants of Seth, because it was his line that followed God. The "daughters of men" would be the descendants of Cain - who did not follow God, and therefore, must be differentiated from the descendants of Seth. Gen 4-5 deal with showing the two opposing lines: Cain (Gen 4) vs. Seth (Gen 5), therefore it could follow that the phrases "sons of God" and "daughters of man" are just a rewording of the before mentioned distinction.

II. Rulers, or mighty men. This view says that the "sons of God" were rulers of particular cities, or their sons: mighty men of valor, etc. "In some Near Eastern cultures, the King, who was understood to rule for a particular deity, was sometimes called the "son of Horus" or "son of El" or simply "son of god." ... There are a few places in Scripture where Israelite kings were actually referenced with this language (2 Sam 7:14 Psa 2:7, 45:6; 89:26-27). The king’s officials were sometimes likewise called the "sons" of the king, basically meaning committed and loyal servants (cf. 1 Chron 29:24). It was not a biological designation, but a title. (crivoice.org/giants.html)" Therefore, the "sons of God" are the powerful, ruling class.

III. Fallen Angels. The "sons of God" were fallen angels, who saw the beauty of human women, and wished to procreate/glorify themselves/whatever. This view cites Job 1:6 " Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them (ESV)." Job 1 is the only other passage in the OT, where the phrase "benay-ha'elohim (sons of God)" is used.

All of the above mentioned arguments (briefly summarized) have weaknesses and strengths. I disagree with points of all of them. Let me state right away that I do not believe the Nephilim come from the union of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of man," so when any of the arguments use that - they can't that point. But more on this later.

Textually, Moses's point for Gen 6 is NOT about the "sons of God," "daughters of man," and the Nephilim. They are background pieces of explanation which the original audience would have been familiar with. (I just want to reiterate that point)

1. Genesis 4-5 give genealogies of Cain and Seth. Which is valid, but the problem lies in the say Seth's geology starts. Gen 5:1 "Zeh sapher toldot adam (These are the children/generations of Adam/man)" The Hebrew root word "adam" has been a key word throughout all of Genesis so far. It is the name of the first man, Adam. It is the name of the ground (adamah). Translators use this word almost interchangeably between "Adam" and "mankind." Gen 5 breaks the narrative flow of the book to give the account of the generations of Adam through Seth. So, when Gen 6 says "adam [Man] began to multiply" it is dealing with the same word. When verse 2 says "the daughters of adam [man]" it is using the same word. I think it is textually dishonest, so then say that the "daughters of man" are the descendents of Cain. The word "adam" is not used in the account of, or genealogy of Cain. If you follow it through logically, the "daughters of man" would have to be the daughters of Seth, not Cain, unless it is being used as "mankind" then the distinction between the two lines is pointless.

**Naming in English is different than naming in Hebrew. In English names are not noun names they are verbal handles so we know whom we are talking to- they might as well be numbers (#1, go tell your sister, #4 to do the dishes). Hebrew, even modern Hebrew (and some other languages like Chinese to an extent), does employ noun names, not exclusively, but often. A noun name is where a common noun word is taken and given to the child (dew, fountain, gift). The name Adam, means "man/mankind," which is fitting, since he was the founder of the human race.

2. If God wanted to make a distinction between the descendants of Cain and Seth, and bring to light how them intermarrying was bad, He could (and I think would) have simply said, "When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters to them the sons of Cain saw that the daughters of Seth, who follow me (or whatever clause he desired), were attractive, and they took as their wives. . ." There is no reason to disguise that connection, IF that is what the author is trying to communicate.

3. The above argument also goes for the 2nd argument, that the "sons of God" are a ruling class. Another problem with that view, is that although, culturally phrases like that may have been used to describe rulers of cities - we don't see any sort of ruling class, or kingship so far in the development of Genesis. The feel of the text is of a tribal patriarchal society, not the city-state arrangement of the Canaanite period. There may be confusion between the original participants (Noah, Nephilim, etc) in the account, and the original audience of the account (the Israelites when Moses wrote the Torah). The prevailing culture between the two could have been vastly different. You can't over read one into the other, though consideration is merited.

So, who are the "sons of God?"

3. We are left with the fallen angels as our only option (if we don't think outside of the three options given above). Now, to be nit-picky, I don’t like the term “angel.” The Hebrew word that is often translated as “angel” is “mal’ach” which means “messanger” and is also used for purely human individuals. There are two problems with this theory.

First, Jesus states in Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in Heaven (ESV)” But, to use this passage you have to make the following assumptions: 1.) That since in the NT and church age angels can’t procreated – they NEVER could. 2.) There is only ONE kind of spiritual being all encompassed by Jesus’ use of the word “angel/messenger.” I don’t have space in this already very long blog to discuss this further, but there are at least several “species” (for lack of a better term) of angels mentioned through-out scripture. Since God can do anything, the option that one species could have fallen, and had the ability to procreate is always open.

Secondly, In Job 1, “sons of God” is thought to be used of good angels, in comparison to Satan. The "Sons of God" in Job 38:7 are good. This argument is hard to refute.

Thirdly, If the author had meant angels/spiritual beings, he could have said so. BUT it is at least worthy of mentioning, that so far, spiritual beings haven't been mentioned in Torah. We know they exist because of later texts, but so far, outside of the serpent, which is talked about in purely physical animalistic terms, there has been no contact with spirit beings, nor vocabulary given to describe them. Any understanding of spirit beings at this point in the text is picked up from later passages and refurred here.

I personally don’t have a huge problem with the thought of some sub-species of fallen angels, having the ability to procreate, and choosing to do so, but there isn't textual proof. This option could give a broader base to God’s disgust with the human race and gives further reason for why He tells Noah that “The earth was corrupt/marred/spoiled/ruined. . . and behold it was corrupt/marred/spoiled/ruined for all flesh had corrupted/marred/spoiled/ruined their way on the earth (Gen 11a and 12b).”

4. BUT there is the option that the "Sons of God" are simply individuals who walked with God who married ungodly women. It seems like an under-dramatic ending, to the complex arguments - but has great textual appeal. It is also theologically safer, and can pull in the "sons of God" terminology of the NT speaking to general believers.

(I personally haven't decided exactly which option I believe. Angels, or those who walk with God have the most merit. But we don't have textual PROOF for any of them. Genesis is a difficult book, because it was the first written, so it is hard to take later material, and define Genesis by it.)