SONS OF GOD, FALLEN ANGELS, NEPHILIM

WHO ARE THE “SONS OF GOD” IN GENESIS 6:1-4?

DID FALLEN ANGELS REALLY COHABIT WITH EARTHLY WOMEN?

WHO WERE THE NEPHILIM?

Many people wonder about the statement that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose” (Gen. 6:2). It is thought that out of these unions came the “Nephilim,” a supposed race of giants that corrupted the earth (Gen. 6:4).

VIEW ONE: FALLEN ANGELS

One view of Genesis 6:1-4 does indeed understand the pas-sage as referring to the unions of fallen angels (“sons of God”) with humanity (“daughters of men”), resulting in a race of giants on the earth. In fact, “sons of God” is used elsewhere as a title for angels (Job 1:6). Moreover, some maintain that the New Testament affirms this interpretation when it speaks of “angels when they sinned” (2 Peter 2:4) and “did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode” (Jude 6).

But there are some problems with this interpretation. First, the phrase “sons of God” may mean angels but more frequently refers to humanity (Deut. 14:1; 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Isa. 43:6; Hos. 1:10; 11:1; Luke 3:38; 1 John 3:1—2, 10). Second, the New Testament passages in 2 Peter and Jude more likely only refer to angels following Satan in his rebellion against God and not sexual relations with women. Third, and most important, the Lord Jesus taught that angels were not capable of marriage and sexual reproduction (Matt. 22:30).

VIEW TWO: DYNASTIC RULERS

A second interpretation identifies the “sons of God” as dynastic rulers, primordial kings or despots who corrupted the earth by forming harems. Thus, their sin was polygamy. The support for this interpretation is that a king in the ancient Near East was frequently called a “son of god.” However, this view also has some problems. First, while an individual king might have been called a “son of god” in the ancient Near East, there were never groups of dynastic kings called “the sons of God” as found in Genesis 6:2.

Moreover, even though monogamy was the ideal for marriage in the Bible, it does not seem that polygamy was treated as a sin that was so great that it should lead to God's destruction of the world by flood. Considering the problems that Abraham caused by taking Sarah’s advice about Hagar and the tensions between Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, it's surprising that God didn’t cancel the Abrahamic covenant. If God didn't take the covenant away for polygamy, it’s certain He wouldn't destroy the world over it.

VIEW THREE: THE RIGHT OF THE FIRST NIGHT

A third view, derived from the dynastic rulers’ view, is called the right of the first night. This interpretation maintains that the “sons of god” were local dynastic rulers who demanded sexual relations with each new bride in their kingdoms on the night before the bride married her husband. In essence, local rulers raped each young woman before marriage. The support for this view comes from an ancient Babylonian work called The Gilgamesh Epic (2150-1400 BC), which asserts that Gilgamesh would have sexual relations with each bride before she was joined to her husband.

Certainly, if there was a general right of such behavior in the ancient Near East, it was abominable and wicked. The problem is that the right of the first night view does not seem to fit with what is happening in Genesis 6 for five key reasons:

1) The “sons of God took wives,’ a phrase used for marriage;

2) The Hebrew Bible would certainly use an expression like “he took her and lay with her by force” (Gen. 34:2) to describe this behavior, not words for marriage (“they took wives for themselves,” Gen. 6:2);

3) The sinful behavior of these vile kings would not explain the corruption of the earth leading to God judging the earth with a flood;

4) This view presumes Moses, raised in Egypt, and the people of Israel, former slaves from Egypt and raised in the wilderness, were aware of a Babylonian epic without the benefit of the internet or cable news; and

5) The most compelling reason to reject the right of the first night view is that no such action is found anywhere in Scripture whatsoever.

THE INTERMARRIAGE OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY LINES

So what is the best interpretation? Genesis 6:1—4 is best understood as referring to the intermarriage of the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain. The genealogies in the context support this interpretation.

The text recounts the genealogy of Cain, the first murderer (Gen. 4:17-24), immediately followed by the genealogy of Seth (Gen. 4:25-5:32), a godly line from which “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26). After the listing of the two genealogies, Genesis 6:1-4 describes the uniting of these two groups (the Sethite sons of God and the Cainite daughters of men). The merging of these two lines produced offspring called the Nephilim, a Hebrew word that means “fallen ones,” indicating that both lines were now corrupted. Although some consider these “fallen ones” to be superhuman giants, the more appropriate translation is “powerful,” indicating that they became infamous as “the powerful men of old” (Gen. 6:4 HCSB).

Regardless, their corrupting influence on the earth caused God’s judgment of the world by flood in Noah's day (Gen. 6:8-8:22). Although Canaanites are called Nephilim later in Numbers 13:31—33, they were not the physical descendants of those in Genesis 6 because all humanity was destroyed in the flood that followed the corruption of the earth. Rather, the use of Nephilim in Numbers more likely is identifying the Canaanites as a people who were both powerful and corrupt, like the Nephilim of Genesis 6.

FINAL THOUGHTS

There is a lesson in all this. Followers of the Lord Jesus should be careful to preserve their godly heritage. It is spiritually dangerous for a believer to marry someone who has not also become a committed follower of the Lord Jesus. As difficult as it is for two Jesus followers to raise a godly family, it is even harder for a spiritually divided couple to raise children that will love and fear the Lord.