Feb
4
What to Make of This Weird Bible Passage?: Gen. 6:1-4 (part 1)
There are many Bible passages that can be shocking (especially to our modern minds) or confusing. Typically, though, a better understanding of some of the cultural background can help, or a better understanding of God’s nature/attributes and purposes, etc. But, there are a small number of such passages that leave even the most knowledgeable pastor or theologian thinking “What?! Who?! What did I just read?”. Fortunately, none of them are essential to understanding the rest of the Bible, let alone the Gospel.
That said, I have been digging into three Old Testament passages that leave most people scratching their heads. I don’t have access to a bunch of commentaries or academic papers, but I do have access to several study Bibles. So, I thought it might be both fun and informative to take a look at what a few of the best have to say about these passages and share those study notes here.
I’ll address the other two passages in the weeks to come, but this week (and next) we’ll look at Bible-readers’ introduction to the sons of God, daughters of men, and the Nephilim. Shall we?
First up is the ever-popular ESV Study Bible…
ESV Study Bible
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Gen. 6:1-4 (ESV))
6:1-2 man began to multiply. The motif of multiplying is first introduced by God in 1:28, where it is presented in a very positive light and viewed as necessary to fulfill God’s plans for the earth. The present passage, however, reveals that this God-mandated task leads to increasing wickedness on the earth as the population expands. This problem is exacerbated by the coming together of the sons of God and the daughters of man (6:2). The identity of both groups is uncertain, and various solutions have been advocated, although none has gained universal support. Various scholars have proposed that the “sons of God” are (1) fallen angels (cf. Job 1:6; some, however, suggest that this contradicts Mark 12:25, though the reference in Mark is to angels in heaven; see also 2 Pet. 2:4-5; Jude 5-6); or (2) tyrannical human judges or kings (in the ungodly line of Lamech, possibly demon-possessed); or (3) followers of God among the male descendants of Seth (i.e., godly line of Seth, but who married the ungodly daughters of Cain).
Though it would be difficult to determine which of these three views may be correct, it is clear that the kind of relationship described here involved some form of grievous sexual perversion, wherein the “sons of God” saw and with impunity took any women (“daughters of man”) that they wanted. The sequence here in Gen. 6:2 (“saw… attractive (good)… took”) parallels the sequence of the fall in 3:6 (“saw… good… took”). In both cases, something good in God’s creation is used in disobedience and sinful rebellion against God, with tragic consequences. Only Noah stands apart from this sin. (See note on 1 Pet. 3:19.)
6:3 God announces that because of the immoral nature of people, their days shall be 120 years. There are two possible interpretations of this number of years: either the lives of human beings will no longer exceed 120 years, or the coming flood is anticipated in 120 years. While the latter interpretation is simpler, the former interpretation is appealing, and would be true as a generalization even though some of those who live after the flood (e.g., Abraham) enjoy lives in excess of 120 years.
6:4 Nephilim. The meaning of this term is uncertain. It occurs elsewhere in the OT only in Num. 13:33, where it denotes a group living in Canaan. If both passages refer to the same people, then the Israelite spies (Num. 13:33) are expressing their fears of the Canaanites by likening them to the ancient men of renown. Although in Hebrew Nepilim means “fallen ones,” the earliest Greek translators rendered it gigantes, “giants.” This idea may have been mistakenly deduced from Num. 13:33; one must be cautious about reading it back into the present passage. The Nephilim were mighty men or warriors and, as such, may well have contributed to the violence that filled the earth (see Gen. 6:13).
Next up is the Baker Illustrated Study Bible which, as far as I can tell, was only printed with the CSB text…
Baker Illustrated Study Bible
“When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. 3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever, because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterward, when the sons of God came to the daughters of mankind, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.” (Gen. 6:1-4 (CSB))
6:1-4 Few episodes in Scripture defy dogmatic interpretation as does 6:1-4. The sons of God marry the daughters of humans (6:1-2); and Nephilim are said to be on the earth (6:4). Until this point Genesis has dealt only with the sins of individuals — Cain, Lamech, Eve, Adam. Now the emphasis is on the sin of a group, the sons of God.
Who are these sons of God (6:2)? The term “sons of God” elsewhere in the OT designates angels (see Jb 1:6; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 89:7). The NT, however, teaches that angels do not marry (Mt 22:29-30; Mk 12:24-25; Lk 20:34-35). Furthermore, if the angels are the villains, then why is God’s anger directed against humans? Recall, however, that in the following flood story all of God’s creation suffers for the sin of humanity.
The sons of God, if not angels, may be the Sethites (the godly line), while the daughters of humankind are the Cainites (the ungodly line). The trespass would be the unequal yoking together of believer and unbeliever. This interpretation is not without its problems, but it is quite entrenched in Christian tradition.
Whatever the correct interpretation, the union is illicit, for God is provoked. It is interesting that the reference to God’s displeasure (6:3) comes before the reference to the Nephilim (6:4). This shows that God’s annoyance is with the nuptial arrangement itself. More than likely, the 120 years does not refer to a shortened life span (for only Joseph lives less than 120 years in Genesis) but refers to a period of grace before the flood commences. As such it may be compared with Jnh 3:4.
The text does not say that the Nephilim (6:4) are the offspring of this alliance. Rather they are contemporaries of the other two parties. According to Nm 13:33, they form part of the pre-Israelite population of Palestine.
[Below the notes just cited, there is a shaded, key-word definition box for “Nephilim”, which says…]
The Hebrew word nepilim (literally, “fallen ones”) occurs only in Gn 6:4 and Nm 13:33. Some scholars have considered the Nephilim to be offspring from the unions between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of mankind,” but it is also possible that the writer was distinguishing between the Nephilim and the children of those unions who became the “powerful men of old, the famous men” (Gn 6:4). Descendants of the Nephilim were purported to have also lived after the flood (Dt 2:10-11, 20-23; Jos 14:15; 15:13-14; 2 Sm 21:16-22; 1 Ch 20:6-8). Since the entire human race, except for Noah and his family, was destroyed in the deluge, these descendants who lived in Canaan at the time of the exodus most likely descended through Ham, one of Noah’s sons (Gn 10:8-20).
Notice that both of these study Bibles have fairly lengthy and substantial notes on this passage. (Not all do.) There is obviously some overlap, as we should expect, but each also brings up unique points. They both mention the fallen angels hypothesis and the Sethite hypothesis for the “sons of God”, but only the ESVSB mentions the third main theory, i.e., kings/judges. Whereas either s.b. may lean toward a position on a particular issue from this passage, no interpretation is presented dogmatically.
Next week, we will continue by seeing what the NIV Faithlife Illustrated Study Bible and the NET Full Notes Edition have to say on these matters….
