Genesis 6.1-3 has been a passage that has fascinated me for some time. It provokes the reader to a variety of questions:
– Who are the sons of god (בני־האלהים)?
– Why are they juxtaposed with the daughters of men/humans (בנות האדם)?
– When the sons of god see the daughters of men what does it mean that the sons saw the daughters as “good?” Some translations render טבת as “beautiful,” but should we ask whether or not implies functionality rather than aesthetic attractiveness, ala Genesis 1?
– If these women were functionally appealing, this would make sense of their being taken as wives (to bear children), but what is going on here? Did these sons take these daughters and live with them, have families, and so forth according to the narrative?
– When YHWH says that his spirit will no longer reside or dwell “with/in men/humans” what does this mean? Should לא־ידון רוחי באדם be read as a Shekinah-like presence? Should it be read as a sustaining life force like the breath of the Creator into Adam in Genesis 2?
– What does it mean that the “days” of humanity will be one hundred and twenty years? Does this have to do with life span? Or does it mean that the flood that follows in the narrative structure is about a century away?
Let’s discuss these oddities!
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting that you should post this today. On Monday I had to turn in a flow-of-thought diagram for Gen 6:1-4 for my OT Intro class, along with a list of questions that I would ask to get at the meaning of the passage. I’ve forwarded the link to this to the prof, in case he wants to bring it to the resident students (I’m taking the class as directed research because the seminary is 4 hours away).
I always found this text to be extremely intriguing. Somebody actually asked me about it the other day. I think that we have to be extremely careful by NOT allowing our modernistic ideas determine what this text means (and in doing so warp the text). It might seem bizarre that that angels and humans procreated, but is it really that outlandish when our starting place is the great and glorious God who spoke a world into existence, a person in a fish, and a man or woman who becomes demonized? We’re in a different world than the one we have been told we live in. It is a world that has a lot of spirits. We can easily forget this.
NASB ©
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.”
1st thing is this verse says nothing about the spirit dwelling within or with. This verse is refering to the duration of how long the spirit will have to deal with mankind to sin is put away which is not forever but 120 periods of time. The largest set amount of time given is 7-7 years periods so this refers to 5880 solar years and 120 years of the Elohim which is counted as a year which is declared in the 7 month of the 49th year tll the 13 month of 49th year. so 49 solar years but the last 7 months counted as the 50th year to honor the 7 days of creation. When Jeremiah spoke of 70 years determined for Israel this is the same structure which means 3430 years. Btw this brings us to about the same date by historical records .
The Sons Of the Eloihim probably refers to the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain who was cursed which keeping this bloodline separate is a must if the offspring of Adam’s wife was to crush the offspring of satan who was Cain. Seth’s bloodline had to stay free of cain’s till the offspring produced the one who would crush satan. thus he need for the flood, the calling of Abraham to leave , Isaac as the bloodline, his wife coming from Abrahams family , the receiving of the inheritance by Jacob over Essua who took a wife from the natives, and the laws against mixing with other nation giving to Israel
Q. Brian asked: “Who are the sons of god (בני־האלהים)?”
A. Let the bible explain the bible. In Galatians Paul calls the recipients ‘SONS of God’, and heirs [Gal 4:7] ‘Wherefore you are no more a servant, but a SON; and if a SON, then an HEIR of God through Christ’. Galatians (from Γαλα, H1540 + τικός) was written to exiles. This reference to ‘heirs’ is a reference to a theme about the ‘tribes of God’s inheritance’ developed in the OT:
[Psa 16:5] “The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup”
[Psa 119:57] “You are my portion, O LORD: I have said that I would keep your words.”
[Psa 142:5] “I cried unto you, O LORD: I said, You are my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.”
[Jer 10:16][Jer 51:19] “The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name.”
[Isa 63:17] “O LORD, why have you made us to go astray from your ways, and hardened our heart from your fear? Return for your servants’ sake, the tribes of yours inheritance.”
Notice Pauls’ use of the OT to explain his comments in [Gal 4:7]. Paul uses the story of Isaac and Ishmael, from [Genesis 16:15; 21:2,9] (in [Gal 4:22]) and cites [Isa 54:1] (in [Gal 4:27]) which references NOT the SONS OF GOD, but the CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE in comparison to the CHILDREN OF THE MARRIED WIFE [Isa 54:1]. This last question either poses more questions “who are the CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE WIFE” or it answers Brian’s questions.
As documented in 2 Maccabees, John Hyrcanus forcibly converted all 12 tribes of Edomites to become Jews in 125 BC. This did two things. First it meant that most Jews were more likely to be Edomites than Israelites (12 tribes of Edom vastly outnumbered 3 Judeans tribes) as citizens of Judah (Jews). Second it caused huge tension between the two groups (because of [Deut 23:8-9]) and because Edomites came to rule over the Judeans (Herodian Kings). This is the violence mentioned in [Oba 1:10-13].
The Sons of Gods are those to whom pertains the adoption, the glory and the covenants [Rom 9:4][Gal 4:5] and inheritance through faith. While the Children of the the desolate wife are Ishamelites (Sons of Hagar) and Edomites, the goats (who married into Ishmael’s lineage through Mahalath [Gen 28:9]) who attempted to claim a heritage that did not belong to them by adopting the mantle of Israel falsely calling themselves Judeans.
This is also mentioned in [Isa 44:5] “One shall say, ‘I am the LORD’s’; and another shall call himself Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel” … to which God responds it is HE (and by implication ONLY HE) who appoints his ancient people [Isa 44:6-7]. That God called Israel by their name [Isa 43:1] that was subsequently ‘borrowed’ doesn’t matter. Israel would be called by a new name [Isa 62:6] which the mouth of the LORD shall name [Acts 11:26].
I should add that when Christian’s read [Gal 4:7] they see the struggle between ‘Spirit’ and ‘Flesh’. This is not wrong par se, but it is _VERY_ simplistic, ignoring the context of the struggle Paul highlights through the use of scripture.
Isaac inherited the covenant because of faith. Ishmael did not.
Jacob inherited the covenant because of faith. Esau did not.
Israelite ‘Jews’ appear to have heard the voice of their shepherd [John 10:27] (because of faith) while Edomite Jews (claiming not to have been born of fornication) tended not to [John 8:44].
The root of the tree is the covenant, once watered by faith in God’s ability to save, now watered by faith in Yehshua who did.
Brian
If the students/prof. in that class would like to share their thoughts here I’d be happy to chat with them. It is a fun text to discuss!
Daniel
I think the possibility that Genesis 6.1-3 is about angelic beings has caused a lot of people hermeneutical fits. Many have sought other options. I discussed this passage before and it appears that there was no other interpretation other than angelic beings for quite a while. See the comment from Agathos here: http://nearemmaus.com/2011/06/25/saturdays-in-second-temple-judaism-the-sons-of-god-and-the-daughters-of-men/
Robert
In Hebrew it says באדם. This can be “in humanity,” “among humanity,” “in a man,” and so forth and so on.
Brian
if the Spirit was in men at this time why wouldnt of it taught them besides the only translations that support your rendering are very few . They are probably not understanding the context. We could use other words here too but they are even futher from the context. I dont believe the spirit was ever dwelling in aman tell it dwelled in Yahshua because out of perfection to the Commandments he made his body a dwelling place AKA A Temple and even the other comforter spirit requires a certain amount of obedience to dwell in us
These “beney elohim” as angelic creatures( acting outside Yahweh’s will) and the nephilim as giants explain a lot , the flood, Joshua, David and Goliath(last nephilim of the massoretic text), some of Samuel’s narrative.
The nephilim explain lots of OT texts we cannot make sense of.
Check out Joshua, every time Yahweh lays down the “herem” on a group, there the “nephilim/giants” are. Every one of them. Sometimes called Anakim or Raphaim or nephilim. I took OT theology courses and saved some of the remnants about this, showing why Anakim and Raphaim were also nephilim.
Note even their animals were to be extinguished because of potential hybrid animal offspring. Note virgins among the POWs could be tolerated, but, no others could. Virginity guarantees she has not had sex with a beney elohim or nepihilim.
When Yahweh does not lay down the “herem” on a group, no nephilim/giants are present.
These hybrid creatures were implacably opposed Yahweh and His people.
I think this explains why there is such a stringent opposition to a Jewish girl having pre marital sex. IF she has, it could have been with these things and then God’s people whom Christ was to arrive through would have been destroyed like the Amalekites had to be. Not a chance Yahweh would risk that.
Jude and Peter discuss these beney elohim attacks and the beney elohim’s destiny. Both saw them as rebellious angels.
I think I and maybe 3 other Christians interpret this passage literally. I’ve been laughed out of town over this. Doesn’t bug me, once I took those courses and learned of these things, it made me feel way more comfortable with the OT text.
W/O the nephilim, you cannot explain to yourself why our creator God of virtue Love would have Joshua wipe out entire communities, can we? It makes 0 logic unless the beney elohim are what Jude and Peter felt.
Then, it adds up, Yahweh was forced into this to preserve the Jews to guarantee Jesus Christ managing the salvation of the universe in effect.
“sons of God” is a term used in the NT as human believers, in the OT text it means “spirit beings” in Job and I believe in Genesis, the only 2 texts it is in.
BTW, these things were widespread acknowledged by most the ANE people. Revered by the Gentiles, worshipped in the Levant , feared and loathed by the Jews. Go figure.
Honestly, they’re all over the Old Testament writings. I Enoch has 1 large section about them, called “The Watchers”, a term also in the OT text.
Robert
It is not likely that the Book of Genesis contains a full-blown Johannine Pneumatology. There are plenty of passages that discuss humans having the ruach of God in them prior to the New Testament’s New Covenant description. A good study of this is John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit.
Patrick
no where does it state that the giants(men of old) were created by this union., it states they already existed in almost every translation. These Nephilim were the cross of cain(satans bloodline, satan offspring that will be crushed) with the 6th day creation . Yes there were the sons of the Elohim in those days which later were set over the nations (Deuteronomy 32:8, Genesis 10:5) who were punished by being made mortal (Psalm 82) which Peter and Jude speak about. They died as a man and are being held to this very day in the grave for later judgement.
The one thin i agree with is cains bloodline could not eliminate the womans till Yahshua and this the whole reason for the separation of bloodlines. Satan worked very hard but failed . Praise Yah the Elyon and Chavah the Wisdom the one who Adam named his wife after
Brian
I dont hold to Johannine Pneumatology because i dont find John’s gospel as authenic , My understanding come from Jeremiah, Acts , Luke and Matthew. I believe that before Yahshua and the renewed covenant that the some was anointed with the Spirit but it was outwardly unlike it being inwardly witth Yahshua. I also believe this Spirit spoke and done miracles thru men , women and even a donkey but not to the fullness of what Yahshua received.
Robert,
Yes, one could interpret that as nephilim were already there. I don’t disagree it’s possible.
There is interest in the Deuteronomy 32:8 nuance as well. Since I see beney elohim in the massoretic text as angelic creatures and not humans as you do, I believe this text is Yahweh assigning rule over the Gentiles after Babel to lower level angelic beings because the Gentiles in effect have said, “WE are not interested in your guidance” so Yahweh replied in effect, “Fine with Me, have these guys to rule over you”. In all OT texts EX Massoretic, it says “beney elohim”, not “sons of Israel” there. LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls.
Then Psalm 82 appears to me to be Yahweh judging their rule negatively and placing a death sentence on them.
IMO,this is a separate issue from Genesis 6. Peter and Jude appear to me anyway to be talking about angels having sex with humans which was out of bounds to them, but, they did it anyway.
Here’s something interesting, previously, both Christians and Jews agreed with this view. “Sons of God” became too close to “Son of God’ , so Orthodox Jews dropped that. Christians dropped it around the 4th century because of “polytheism” fears.
“sons of God” sounded like polytheism, so Christians also dropped this view out of fear and honestly, when I hear any preacher discuss Psalm 82 or Jesus’ mention of it in John, they always claim that’s Yahweh talking to bad, ancient Jewish leaders.
I object.
1) It is explicity stated this is in El’s divine council. Not a place for the average human.
2) It says these “elohim’s” are to die like men. Not logical if that is men being judged.
3) The word, elohim is always a “spirit being” in the rest of the OT text, why human men here? Mostly God, sometimes a spirit. The witch of Endor saw Samuel’s spirit and she said that’s an “elohim” in the Massoretic text.
4) It states “all the foundations of the earth” are shaken and poor leadership among ancient Israel was the norm, not the exception. Don’t see why that would shake the foundations of the earth.
Yes
i agree that this subject has been an issue for christians and jews as being polytheistic but in reality its henotheistic because they were created as gods by the Most High who alone has the power to create and the power to delegate all kinds of acts as we see with the authority that was given to Yahshua so he could rule during the !000 year Sabbath while the Elohim rest again
The sons of god in this passage are almost certainly divine beings of some sort, just as in, e.g., Job 1.6. It’s quite common to find the divine realm with all its various deities envisioned as a household in various ancient West Asian sources, thus with some of the lower level deities being labeled as sons or children of the high(er) god.
The beginning of Gen 6 makes sense to me as a compressed iteration of the myth(s) seen also in, for example, the Book of the Watchers (1 En 1-36). If memory serves, James Vanderkam argues this in his seminal, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition.
As has been pointed out, this reading of Gen 6’s “sons of god” has caused many (especially evangelical) readers “hermeneutical fits,” which is somewhat surprising since 1 Pet, 2 Pet, and Jude all seem to presume this myth — not to mention that it was espoused by most of the extant 2nd-3rd century Christian authors whom evangelicals tend to like: e.g. (and not intended to be exhaustive) Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, etc.; and going even later, writers such as Lactantius. Heck, Irenaeus even includes this in an iteration of his rule of truth/faith (AH 1.10.1).
FWIW, Annette Reed’s published dissertation is an excellent treatment of the reception of the Book of the Watchers and, in particular, its iterations of this myth in ancient Jewish and early Christian sources: Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Robert
Thank you for the clarification. While I understand your point I think it is important to ask whether the concept of the spirit of God had to be exactly the same throughout Scripture. I don’t think so, though I think the ideas relate and influence one another.
Stephen
Thanks for the very informative comment! It does seem that many are motivated to avoid the angelic beings interpretation because of modern sensitivity rather than exegesis. I wonder if this idea is behind Paul’s angel language in 1 Cor 11?
Concepts are developed , understandings are received when you test concepts with facts. while I am working very hard to prove all concepts so they can truely be backed biblically there is some that I havent understood yet but hope oneday i will. I use all resources like ANE writings , historical records , extra biblical to understand thought at a certain time, myths that existed, philosophy BC and AD but most of all the whole OT and NT. Eventhough I dont find John authenic I still find profit in it as to understanding how christianty morphed into what we have today plus I am not sure that maybe some of it came from an oral source or was taken out of the other gospels to create a 4th so it could be equal to the amount of winds or was really created to put down the belief that Jesus revealed an unknown god of Marcionism. I think this reason is why the birth narratives were added to Matthew after it was translated to greek and to the Gospel of the Lord which was probably brought to Rome for the first time by Marcion was because of Marcion. I dont belief the BS that Marcion edited it but left dozens of verses untouched that refuted his belief. My guess this was all done by Justin and/ or his contempararies. The concept of the trinity is the most unprovable doctrine but the understanding of a trinity (Creator, Wisdom, office of the word(son)) within what i can prove but not 3 equal persons in 1
Robert,
I would disagree that the “elohims” of Psalm 82 indicate henotheism in the Hebrew Scriptures. They are created beings who do not deserve veneration and never did. The Gentiles worshipped them avidly as history documents, that was the Gentile’s spiritual darkness phase. Yahweh placed on them no value as deities when He created them or gave them authority to rule the Gentiles. He just gave them ruling authority like a human king.
To repeat, the Hebrew word “elohim” does not mean anything specific ontologically. It CAN as it almost always means Yahweh, but, it also means other spirit beings at times in the Hebrew text. Samuel’s spirit was called an elohim.
Patrick
you are mixed up on what henotheism and are defining it as polytheism where other gods are worshipped.
henotheism is the belief that other lessor gods existed and were set up as leaders of nations.
btw Elohim is combined masc-fem plural and it used to describe gods and godesses but also has being used as a despription of authority when used describing a human . But most common is its use to desribe YAH and HAVAH as the highest authorities in the universe and Elyon is used to desribe YAH the highest Authority.
The word God,god,godess,El, el ,Eloah.,eloah ,Elohim. and elohim are not names ,they are titles or offices
Robert,
I may be inaccurate( wouldn’t be the first time). I’ve got a PDF file by Dr. Michael Heiser about all these various issues, I don’t know how to attach things though. He does a fairly good job of distinguishing between monotheism, henotheism, monolatry and polytheism in the OT text.
One quick point, I do NOT think Psalm 82 “elohims” deserved worship. They were worshipped because the Gentiles “worshipped the creature more than the creator” back then. Certainly was not why Yahweh created them.
I agree that only the Creator deserves Worship. I dont think the lessor gods were to be worshipped but were to be respected . these lessor gods were still only being giving powers to do a job. I believe ALL power belongs to the Most High but can be delegated as he sees fit.
One can only truly worship the Elyon but sometimes the word is used losely.or people are in error..
To take the nephilim in a mythical sense is inconsistent with the ‘sons of God’ in the rest of the bible, and I’d argue backwards. We read [Gen 6:1-3] as though the nephilim where those mythical beings who perished in the flood, but this is a product of our presuppositions. Here’s how:
Brian’s just done a long series on Genesis, Enns and Collins. One of the questions that arose periodically was whether Adam was inconsistent with evolution, which is akin to asking if Adam was the progenitor of all. Scientifically, from the existence of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam we can see scientifically that one can be the progenitor of all alive today without having been the ‘sole’ progenitor (the idea being that no other progenitor has had their genetic descent so widely distributed or indeed died out as branches).
Therefore, reading “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.” we presuppose that ‘man’ who was multiplying on the face of the land, belong to Adam and married into wives who were of some mythical branch; but that isn’t the only sense it may be read. What if ‘man multiplying on the face of the land’ were others than those belonging to Adam, and ‘the sons of God’ who provided the daughters that were being married to, were those from Adam (who after all, was created in the image and likeness of God). This would therefore say that the daughters of Adam (daughters of the Sons of God) married into unbelief which is a sin we readily recognize).
The implication is that those who perished in the flood were unbelieving faithless man, while Noah was the last branch of the ‘Sons of God’ (nephilim) (who had not married into unbelief). This was my point about Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. Genetically Isaac was no different than Ishmael, but Isaac was Christlike (who was the perfect image of the Invisible God, like a pre-sin Adam) and so a ‘son of God’. Similarly, Jacob was also Christlike, while Esau was not. This would make ‘Sons of God’ a name for Christ-likeness, which is clearly how Adam was intended and consistent with the rest of the bible.
Unfortunately, our minds enjoy the spectacular and so the idea of a race of uber-men dying out in the flood has much more appeal.
Andrew,
I think a Hebrew exegete should debate this, I just don’t have the tools to. I tend to side with Dr. Heiser on this, his view is the text should be read indicating nephilim are the offspring of the beney elohim and human females.
I would add this in, Adam does not appear in Genesis to have been the literal father of all humanity. We’ve assumed he was for various reasons.
He does appear to me to be the father of “sin” from the human side based on Paul’s theology , but, I do not think we are to see him as the genetic father of all humanity. That just is not a reasonable conclusion based on Cain’s fears of being murdered and “the land of Nod”.
I would also say that the bible is limited by the Jewish mind. NOT theology, but, some facts.
An example is when they used the term “the inhabited earth”. Paul said in Colossians “the inhabited earth” has been evangelized. That’s nonsense literally, what Paul understood of the earth had been evangelized, the empire.
Believing this personally as accurate, it may be Adam is the first human THEY are aware of. Just as the 70 “nations” dispersed at Babel are the 70 they knew of, that does not mean there were not other people groups outside their purview in the Americas, China, etc.
Patrick
I agree that the 70 nations were not the only that existed , the chinese have a history of existing before the flood and even mention the flood in their history. The flood was not worldwide but what caused the flood in the middle east certainly effected other regions. The reason the flood was so bad in the land east of eden is because much of it is below sea level. I believe the flood was caused by a meteor hitting the atlanic causing sea water to flow into Cannan from the meditarian sea plus the steam caused by it would of caused heavy rains from west to east. this would of lessened the effect of the further east it went but still causing local floods as far a china and probably tidal waves in the americas. According to Duet 32 they Elyon reserved the right to create his own nation which he did when He called Abraham. When reserving this he also reserved 2 of the princes(sons of Elohim) for his own. These 2 were Michael and Gabriel. These 2 appeared with him when Yah met with Abraham before Sodom. In understanding Psalm 82 where these princes were judged and sentenced we only need to look as far as Daniel 10 to see that Gabriel and Michael were carrying out this sentence. Some try to say that the prince of persia was a human but how can a human last one second against Gabriel or Michael. This was a tribal god and so was the prince of greece. Ezekiel 38 is also important because the prince gog was not part of the judgement but will fall later to the influence of satan(lucifer) after the 1000 year Sabbath of the Elohim. This may really rub some here but lucifer was probably the first born of the Elohim and probably ruled while the Elohim rested their first Sabbath of the 7th day of creation but became so proud refused to return the Throne (Ezekiel 28). This Act may be why the Elohim created a new first born creation in Adam so that A tested worthy first born coul rule durinng the next Sabbath. This would be Yahshua who earned the right to be the Fisrt Born thru the new creation of the resurrected from the dead of Adam.
Robert,
There’s a study I have( again, can’t link it) that demonstrates the word, “prince” in the OT text is always a spirit being. Apparently, the “prince of Persia” would be the one Yahweh assigned to rule Persia for example.
Lots of stuff we believe might rub folks wrong, I don’t care. I’m into the text cause Jesus validated it. The stuff I’ve discussed here actually helps me make more logic, rather than less, of the OT narrative. W/O some of it, things like the herem just don’t make any sense to me when coupled with the virtues the same text assigns our creator.
Your approach is very simular to mine. I do my best not to offend anyone but know I cant assure that I dont when presenting what and why I have come to believe. I really love my beliefs tested by discussion with very knowledgable people whether it against or like minded even though I am pressed harder by those who are against my beliefs.
I read constantly and have probably read and tried to test the study you refer to..I try to base my belief on what is provable but sometimes lack the proof or maybe just havie not found yet .
R.C. Sproul weighs in at Ligonier Ministries: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-are-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-6/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=5575&utm_campaign=0