Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And Yahweh said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants 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.
Genesis 6:1-4
One of the joys of preaching systematically through a particular book of the Bible is having to (getting to?) deal with those passages which are most puzzling, and Genesis is no exception. There is maybe no text of Scripture more disputed than Genesis 6:1-4, and just a brief search on the internet reveals that Bible students and skeptics alike find it very fascinating. The questions which spark the most debate are these:
- Who were the “sons of God”?
- Who were the “daughters of men”?
- What does it mean that man’s days would be 120 years?
- Who were the giants, and what became of them?
I say these questions spark the most debate, but they are not necessarily the most important ones to interpret the meaning of the passage. As usual, we must bear in mind the context and the author’s intent. In the case of Genesis 6:1-8, we observe that these verses form the conclusion of the section which begins in 5:1. It is the book of the genealogy of Adam, which starts with his creation and ends with Noah finding grace in the eyes of Yahweh. The next major division of Genesis begins in v.9 with the genealogy of Noah.
Why is this important, and how is it helpful? When Moses records the status of the human race in the first third of chapter 6, he is drawing a conclusion about the descent of man from the perfection of the garden in Eden to the absolute moral corruption which had overspread the whole earth in just ten generations’ time. So whatever is meant by these newly introduced terms (“sons of God,” “daughters of men,” “giants” [or nephilim]), they are used to describe Adam’s race as sin spread from one generation to the next. If we are going to propose answers which introduce moral actors from off the scene, i.e. outside of humanity itself, there will have to be a pretty substantial amount of textual evidence in these verses. It will not do to appeal to other texts of Scripture in order to define these terms, unless we can find warrant for those definitions in Genesis 6.
If we are going to propose answers which introduce moral actors from off the scene, i.e. outside of humanity itself, there will have to be a pretty substantial amount of textual evidence in these verses.
There is one exception to this principle, as I see it, namely that if there is an earlier reference to the “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” and/or the “nephilim” in Scripture, then it could be argued that the earlier context defined these terms, and Moses was simply using them with their accepted definitions. It turns out that there are three such uses of the expression, “sons of God,” in the book of Job, which was arguably written prior to the books of Moses. So while the events of Genesis 6 certainly predate those of the book of Job, it is possible that Moses was depending on a definition of the sons of God provided by Job.
Can we prove that Moses had access to the book of Job prior to writing the account in Genesis? That is doubtful. We just do not know enough about the date and origin of the book of Job, or how it came to be known to the Israelites and included in the canon of Scripture. That is not to say that the book of Job should be excluded from the Bible, but we must admit that there are many things about the Old Testament canon of which we remain ignorant. Just because it is possible that Job was written earlier than Genesis, and it is possible that Moses had a copy of Job from which he borrowed terminology, it does not automatically follow that he intended us to read the phrase “sons of God” the same way in Genesis 6 as Job.
To complicate things just a bit further, if we take a look at the three uses in Job, the definition of this expression is not entirely certain. Job 1:6 reads, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came among them.” Most interpreters that I have read immediately conclude that the “sons of God” here are angels, but I do not find anything in the text itself or the nearby context which requires or even strongly suggests that interpretation. The same thing is true with 2:1 which reads almost identically: “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan came also among them to present himself before Yahweh.”
What about Job 38:7? It concludes a question which God asks of Job beginning in v.4: “Where were you…when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Is this referring to angels? That seems possible, but if so, it is the only reference to spirit beings in a chapter which is focused entirely on the creation and governance of the physical universe. To make a definitive case about the meaning of the phrase in Genesis 6 based on a not-entirely-unambiguous use in Job 38 seems to be a stretch.
To rightly interpret Genesis 6, we have to consider the use of “sons of God” in Job. However, since meaning is always determined in context, we cannot allow even an earlier reference to override the meaning that Moses intended when he wrote Genesis 6. This means that, even if we could be absolutely certain about the meaning of “sons of God” in Job, we still must justify our interpretation of it in Genesis by appealing to the text itself, not simply borrowing Job’s definition.
The fact is we need to have a certain level of interpretive humility and be willing to accept the limits of our knowledge.
So where does this leave us with regard to interpreting Genesis 6:1-8? It certainly leaves us with unanswered questions and puzzles which will probably have to remain puzzling. I realize such a conclusion will be unsatisfying to many, but the fact is we need to have a certain level of interpretive humility and be willing to accept the limits of our knowledge. What is clear and not in dispute in Genesis 6:1-8 is that in just ten generations mankind had become so corrupt, so immoral, so offensive to God’s holiness that he decided to destroy the entire creation he had made, from man to beast to bird. Yet even in the face of this terrible judgment, God’s grace was found by a man named Noah. There is more to be said, but that will be reserved for Sunday’s sermon and maybe another post.