Is there a better way to interpret Genesis 6:1-4? Most people seem to gravitate to one of three major views concerning the meaning of the phrase “sons of God.” John Sailhamer offers a brief summary that is helpful: “The ‘sons of God’ are (1) angels; (2) royalty; and (3) pious men from the ‘line of Seth.’”1 Previously, I have addressed all three views and stated that I find #1 and #3 implausible, leaving me with the despotic royalty view as most likely representing Moses’ original intent. In spite of the fact that I have come to my own peace about the meaning of this passage, the debate rages on, especially on the internet and in social media.
After reading Sailhamer’s comments on this passage, though, I realize there is a fourth view that must be considered. He observes that all of the major interpretive views assume that vv.1-4 are part of Moses’ introduction to the flood narrative. What they do not consider is the possibility that this is the summary and conclusion of the genealogy that begins in 5:1 and traces the line of Seth for ten generations until the time of the flood. When we remember that the chapter divisions are not part of the original text (except in places like the Psalms, where each poem stands alone as a defined unit), we can see how this may contribute to a misunderstanding about the place and purpose of 6:1-4.
If we see vv.1-4 as the introduction to the flood account, then we would assume that Moses is giving a justification for the judgment of the flood. This is precisely how these verses are viewed by the vast majority of interpreters. They see the action of the sons of God in looking upon the beauty of the daughters of men and taking any they chose as wives as somehow sinful. Support for this could be argued from Yahweh’s words in v.3 that mankind is “corrupt,” and therefore his Spirit will not remain with him. The reference in v.4 to the Nephilim, then, is seen as the spoiled fruit of these immoral relationships, whatever they specific nature.
Sailhamer proposed an alternative reading. “If, however, vv.1-4 serve as a conclusion and summary of ch.5, there is little to arouse suspicion that the events recounted here are out of the ordinary….they may be only a reminder that the sons and daughters of Adam had greatly increased in number (suggested in ch. 5), had married (assumed in ch.5), and had continued to have children (stated in ch.5). The impression given by the events in vv.1-4 is that they are an interlude, a sort of calm before the storm. For a brief moment we see a glimpse of humankind in the midst of their everyday affairs.”2 The sons of God and daughters of men were simply experiencing the blessing of fruitfulness that was first promised in the garden.
It became apparent to me after reading Sailhamer that the traditional approach has a significant problem. If 6:1-4 are meant by Moses to provide the justification for the flood, presumably to destroy the corrupt offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men, then why does he go on to describe the spread of wickedness as the obvious basis for his decision to flood the earth in vv.5-7? The text says, “When the LORD saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time, the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and he was deeply grieved. Then the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky – for I regret that I made them.”
If the flood was intended to wipe out the sin of the sons of God and the daughters of men, then why does Moses explicitly say that God judged the earth because the wickedness of mankind had become ubiquitous and all-pervasive? Were all men punished because of the unique sins of this one class, the sons of God? Or were all men punished because they were universally living in rebellion against the Lord? Moses seems to indicate the latter.
But what happens if we ignore the chapter divisions? Does it really make sense to connect vv.1-4 with what precedes it? Sailhamer argues that it does. In an endnote he mentions that the opening clause (NKJV, “Now it came to pass”; NIV, “When”) follows a string of similar clauses in the final verses of chapter 5, suggesting a continuation of the theme. It is not until v.4 that the Hebrew structure changes to follow a pattern that has marked the conclusion of sections in the previous chapters.3 He also notes a similarity between Moses’ focus on marriage at the end of chapter 2 just prior to discussing the fall, and the focus on marriage in 6:1-4, immediately before the account of the great flood. Finally, the fact that v.1 mentions men multiplying on the earth “recalls,” he says, “the blessing of God in 1:28: ‘Be fruitful and increase in number’.”4
In addition to fitting neatly within the flow of the text, this view takes care of the problem of identifying the “sons of God” and “daughters of men,” which is really the most controversial component of this passage. Again in an endnote Sailhamer remarks, “If these verses are a summary conclusion to ch.5, the description of the sons of God as choosing wives from the daughters of men does not point to a horrendous act.” The Lord had chosen a wife for Adam at the first, and now his descendants are following the same pattern by choosing wives for themselves.
“Why, then,” he asks, “are the men specifically called the ‘sons of God’ and the women the ‘daughters of men’?”5 This really is the key question, and Sailhamer argues that these designations are based on the earlier creation accounts. He points out that in ch.1 both the man and the woman are said to be made in God’s image. In chs. 2 and 3, respectively, man is given life by the very breath of God, while woman is taken from man’s side. So it is natural to speak of men as “sons” of God and women as “daughters” of mankind.
Instead of seeing the Nephilim as angel-human hybrids or giants or some other kinds of being, Sailhamer’s view defines the term in light of the additional descriptors “mighty men” and “men of renown.” Sailhamer concludes that “They are those in the line of Adam and his descendants,”6 specifically those mentioned in the genealogy of ch.5. Because of its appearance after the flood in Numbers 13:32-33, he believes that the term Nephilim is “a general term that could apply to various mighty men of old.”7
Does this view deserve the top spot as the most likely way Moses intended his readers to take Genesis 6:1-4? It certainly seems plausible and avoids many of the criticisms which in my mind plague the angel and Sethite views. Is it more compelling than the dynastic royalty view? Possibly. I’m not sure we can ever be really dogmatic about the interpretation of this text, but I do like the way Sailhamer argues for a contextual reading of Genesis that respects the clues Moses gave us in the text itself. While interpreters often want to run to 2 Peter or Jude to explain the true meaning of Genesis 6, I find myself more and more drawn to views that could have been understood by Moses’ original audience without the aid of later revelation. Sailhamer’s view definitely fits that bill and provides, I think, a strong case for seeing 6:1-4 as an epilogue to the genealogy of ch.5 rather than the introduction to the flood story.
If you see problems with Sailhamer’s reasoning or his handling of the biblical text (or my own!), please comment below and let me know what you think. I always appreciate the chance to think through Bible questions more thoroughly.
1John Sailhamer, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 113. I have removed parenthetical statements for the sake of brevity.
2Ibid.
3Ibid., 115
4Ibid., 113
5Ibid., 115
6Ibid., 114. In contrast to many other interpreters I have read, Sailhamer spends quite a bit of time discussing the significance of v.3 and the statement about man’s years being a hundred and twenty. He maintains that Moses is contrasting the extremely long lifespans of Adam’s immediate descendants with the projected lifespan limit of 120 years. It is in this sense that these men are “great” and “men of renown.”
7Ibid.