The third major view on the identity of the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4 is what we might call the despotic rulers position. In this view “sons of God” is a title taken by human rulers or judges who had become wealthy and extremely powerful and may have even begun to see themselves as in some sense divine. These tyrants, it is supposed, began to build great harems for themselves, taking multitudes of the daughters of men for their own possession in order to build up their dynasties and make great names for themselves.
A couple of observations from the text lend credibility to this view. First, Moses says that this scenario happened “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them.” It is difficult to see the point of this statement if one adopts the angels-as-sons-of-God view or the Cainite-vs-Sethite view. What does the multiplication of humanity have to do with the angels? Would the sheer number of women on the earth make any difference in attracting angels to lust after them? And if Moses’ purpose is to illustrate the corruption of the godly line of Seth with that of Cain, what does the earth’s growing population have to do with anything? On the other hand, if the issue is that of a rapidly growing human population coming under the dictatorship of a handful of powerful men who were heaping wives unto themselves, then this comment about the growth of humanity, and especially their daughters, would be relevant and meaningful.
It is difficult to see the point of this statement if one adopts the angels-as-sons-of-God view or the Cainite-vs-Sethite view.
The second point is that v.2 says not only that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and noted their beauty, but they took for themselves wives of all whom they chose. This appears to be emphasizing that it was not the fact of marriage between the sons of God and daughters of men that was significant, but the nature of those marriages, and more specifically their number. These men were not satisfied with the creation design for marriage: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Instead, they sought to redefine marriage after their own selfish and sinful desires, following the example of Lamech, Cain’s descendant, and yet building upon and magnifying his sin greatly. Where Lamech had two wives in violation of God’s good design, these despots chose wives for themselves of all they desired from among the daughters of men.
One advantage of this view is that it explains the rationale for the flood in terms that are quite consistent with the overarching context of the opening chapters of Genesis. Up to this point in history, God had designed only one institution, that of marriage, and it is precisely this institution which was being completely dismantled by man before the flood. Therefore God sent the flood to put an end to this rampant abuse and corruption of his glorious institution. While polygamy obviously still existed after the flood, there was added the institution of human government, so that there would be a check on the abuses of the marital institution, thus preventing a return to the situation of worldwide corruption that made the flood necessary.
What does this mean for the identity of the giants or nephilim in v.4? If the sons of God were great rulers who sought to establish dynasties, similar to Cain’s building of a city which he named after his son, Enoch, in 4:17, then their sons would have been born into positions of great influence and power. It is not difficult to imagine the sons of these men being called “mighty ones” and “men of renown” as Moses does in v.4.
But what about that term “giants”? Doesn’t that suggest that these were something other than normal human beings? Not necessarily. First of all, in the context of v.4 the word nephilim is parallel to the two other terms: “mighty ones” and “men of renown.” This helps us to understand what was significant about them; not that they were somehow superhuman, but that they were men who demonstrated valor in battle and earned great reputations for themselves. Whatever else this word may signify, the fact that Moses calls them “men” specifically, ought to at least give us pause before we would accept a supernatural identification.
This would also explain why there continue to be nephilim after the flood when the Israelites seek to enter Canaan, because there was nothing superhuman about these men, just super-sinful.
And it is not certain at all that the word “giant” is right here. Milton Fisher, in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says of the word nephilim that “the translation ‘giants’ is supported mainly by the LXX and may be quite misleading. The word may be of unknown origin and mean ‘heroes’ or ‘fierce warriors’ etc. The RSV and NIV transliteration ‘Nephilim’ is safer and may be correct in referring the noun to a race or nation.” In other words, we should not put too much weight on the use of the word giants in some translations. Context seems like a better guide here than anything else.
Now some would respond to this view by saying that it introduces a novel use of the phrase “sons of God” which is contradicted by the clear and obvious uses Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 referring to angels. But we have already shown that those verses, too, must be interpreted and may or may not refer to angels. It will not do to simply assume one view is correct and then use it to attack the legitimacy of other views without strong evidence in support, and there does not seem to be such evidence available anywhere in Genesis 6.
In fact, there are several references in the OT to men who served as judges or magistrates by the Hebrew word elohim or “God.” For instance, Exodus 21:6 says of a Hebrew servant who chooses servitude rather than liberty when his period of service is complete, “then his master shall bring him to the judges [or elohim]” (see also Ex. 22:8-9; Psalm 82:1, 6). Using the expression “sons of God” to refer to human judges or rulers, then, is not necessarily novel.
Some will object to this view on the grounds that it does not take into account the statements in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 about the angels who sinned. This is no real criticism, however, since we do not need to explain those later texts in order to interpret the earlier one. All that must be true is that our view of Genesis 6 not contradict what is said elsewhere in Scripture, and the despotic rulers position does not in any way deny that angels sinned, left their own abode, and are held in chains of darkness awaiting the judgment.
With no view being absolutely certain, we will have to be satisfied with the least-bad one, which, in my opinion is this third and final position.