Genesis 6:1-4

Genesis 6:1-4

 

Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

  

a. Septuagint Genesis 6:2-5 And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 5 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.

 

b. Amplified Bible: Genesis 6:1-4 When men began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,

Genesis 6:2 The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair, and they took wives of all they desired and chose.

Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, My Spirit shall not forever dwell and strive with man, for he also is flesh; but his days shall yet be 120 years.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God lived with the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

 

c. NIV: Genesis 6:1-4 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,

Genesis 6:2the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Genesis 6:4The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

 

d. American Standard Version: Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,

Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.

Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

 

1. It is immediately after this passage that God decides to destroy the earth.

 

a. Genesis 6:5-7 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

b. The passage in Genesis 6:1-4 is much disputed within Christianity. One school of thought teaches the sons of God were angels, while another school of thought teaches the sons of God were the male godly line of Seth that married an ungodly line of females. What I think is important is the flood is not mentioned until after this event, it appears to be an event that sparked God to decide to destroy all life on earth. I know there are good godly men and women who believe this was the godly line of Seth marrying an ungodly line. I don’t believe that particular explanation effectively explains such a strong reaction from heaven. Nevertheless I am posting the two opposing arguments from two good men of God. The minister presenting the school of thought the sons of God were the godly line of Seth is R.C. Sproul. The view the sons of God were angels is presented by Arthur Pink, in his Gleanings in Genesis. I personally believe the sons of God were angels.

 

1). R.C. Sproul: “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. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” —Genesis 6:1-5 “There are several competing theories on this admittedly peculiar text, a few of them fantastic, at least one of them rather pedestrian, ordinary. Some suggest, for instance, that what is happening here is that angels, typically fallen angels or demons, are intermarrying with human women. My position is the far more pedestrian one, but one that carries with it an important lesson. First, why I reject this more fantastic view. Angels, whether fallen or not, and though I am happy to concede they can appear in human form, are spirit beings. They have no bodies. Most of the time most of us remember this, though here some seem to forget. Because angels are spirit beings they are not equipped to consummate a marriage and to sire offspring. Demons can do all sorts of shocking and even frightening things. This, however, is not one of them. They can’t bring forth giants because they simply can’t bring forth. When we consider the context of this text we can better understand what Moses is explaining. In previous chapters we are given a glimpse of two competing lines, the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain. Having established the antithesis in the garden, after affirming that there would be a constant struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we are given snapshot pictures of each of these armies. We see Seth’s line about the business of exercising dominion, in submission to the Lord. We see Cain’s line dishonoring the law of God and making names for themselves. But the future is not mere co-existence between the two lines. The drama builds toward the great crisis of Noah’s flood right here in chapter 6. The great change, what creates the great downward spiral of humanity on the earth is that the two lines come together as one. That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives. The end result, however, isn’t mere dilution. It’s not that the now joined line becomes morally lukewarm, but that evil spreads, grows, deepens. This shouldn’t surprise as for as Chuck Swindoll reminds us, if you drop a white glove in the mud, the mud doesn’t get all glovey.  What we see is salt losing its savor. We see what becomes of intermarrying not with a different race, but a different covenant, or a different faith. What we see is what happens when we are unequally yoked. Nothing, of course, has changed. When the children of God find the world attractive, when we determine to yoke ourselves to it, calamity comes. The world does not get any better, but the church, no longer a light on the hill, becomes much worse, and darkness falls upon the land. We are no longer useful for anything and find ourselves trampled upon the ground.” http://www.ligonier.org/blog/who-are-sons-god-and-daughters-men-genesis-6/

 

c. I want to look at a few of R.C. Sproul’s comments in his explanation.

 

1). R.C.Sproul: “First, why I reject this more fantastic view. Angels, whether fallen or not, and though I am happy to concede they can appear in human form, are spirit beings. They have no bodies. Most of the time most of us remember this, though here some seem to forget.”

 

a). Where does he get the belief that angels have no bodies. This position is found no where in Scripture. The angels that accompanied the LORD on his visit to Abraham in Genesis 18 had bodies real enough to eat a meal with Abraham. Those same angels had bodies real enough to physically grab Lot in Genesis 19:10, and to physically grab the family and almost drag them into safety, Genesis 19:16

 

2). R.C. Sproul: That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives.

 

a). Arthur Pink, Gleanings in Genesis: “We turn now to consider the occasion of the Flood."And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose" (Gen. 6:1, 2). There has been considerable difference of opinion among commentators and expositors in respect to the identity of these "sons of God." The view which has been most widely promulgated and accepted is, that these marriages between the sons of God and the daughters of men refer to unions between believers and unbelievers. It is supposed that the "sons of God" were the descendants of Seth, while the "daughters of men" are regarded as the offspring of Cain, and that these two lines gradually amalgamated, until the line of distinction between God’s people and the world was obliterated. It is further supposed that the Deluge was a visitation of God’s judgment, resulting from His peoples’ failure to maintain their place of separation. But, it seems to us, there are a number of insuperable objections to this interpretation. If the above theory were true, then, it would follow that at the time this amalgamation took place God’s people were limited to the male sex, for the "sons of God" were the ones who "married" the "daughters of men." Again; if the popular theory were true, if these "sons of God" were believers, then they perished at the Flood, but 2 Peter 2:5 states otherwise—"Bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Once more; there is no hint in the Divine record (so far as we can discover) that God had yet given any specific command forbidding His people to marry unbelievers. In view of this silence it seems exceedingly strange that this sin should have been visited with such a fearful judgment. In all ages there have been many of God’s people who have united with worldlings, who have been "unequally yoked together," yet no calamity in anywise comparable with the Deluge has followed. Finally; one wonders why the union of believers with unbelievers should result in "giants"—"there were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4). If, then, the words "sons of God" do not signify the saints of that age, to whom do they refer? In Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, the same expression is found, and in these passages the reference is clearly to angels. It is a significant fact that some versions of the Septuagint contain the word "angels" in Genesis 6:2, 4. That the "sons of God," who are here represented as cohabiting with the daughters of men were angels—fallen angels—seems to be taught in Jude 6: "And the angels which kept not their principality but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." These "sons of God," then, appear to be angels who left their own habitation, came down to earth, and cohabited with the daughters of men. Before we consider the outcome of this illicit intercourse, let us first enquire into the cause of it. Why did these angels thus "sin" (2 Pet. 2:4)? The answer to this question leads us into a mysterious subject which we cannot now treat at length: the "why" finds its answer in Satan. Immediately after that old serpent, the Devil, had brought about the downfall of our first parents, God passed sentence on the "serpent" and declared that the woman’s "Seed" should "bruise his head" (Gen. 3:15). Hence, in due course, Satan sought to frustrate this purpose of God. His first effort was an endeavor to prevent his Bruiser entering this world. This effort is plainly to be seen in his attempts to destroy the channel through which the Lord Jesus was to come. First, God revealed the fact that the Coming One was to be of human kind, the woman’s Seed, hence, as we shall seek to show, Satan attempted to destroy the human race. Next, God made known to Abraham that the Coming One was to be a descendant of his (Gen. 12:3; Galatians 3:18; Matthew 1:1); hence, four hundred years later, when the descendants of Abraham became numerous in Egypt Satan sought to destroy the Abrahamic stock, by moving Pharaoh to seek the destruction of all the male children (Ex. 1:15, 16). Later, God made known the fact that the Coming One was to be of the offspring of David (2 Samuel 7:12, 13); hence, the subsequent attack made upon David through Absalom (2 Samuel 15). As, then, the Coming One was to be of the seed of David, He must spring from the tribe of Judah, and hence the significance of the divided Kingdom, and the attacks of the Ten Tribes upon the Tribe of Judah! The reference in Jude 6 to the angels leaving their own habitation, appears to point to and correspond with these "sons of God" (angels) coming in unto the daughters of men. Apparently, by this means, Satan hoped to destroy the human race (the channel through which the woman’s Seed was to come) by producing a race of monstrosities. How nearly he succeeded is evident from the fact, that with the exception of one family, "all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12). That monstrosities were produced as the result of this unnatural union between the "sons of God" (angels) and the daughters of men, is evident from the words of Genesis 6:4: "There were giants in the earth in those days." The Hebrew word for "giants" here is nephilim, which means fallen ones, from "naphal" to fall. The term "men of renown" in Genesis 6:4 probably finds its historical equivalent in the "heroes" of Grecian mythology. Satan’s special object in seeking to prevent the advent of the woman’s "Seed" by destroying

the human race was evidently an attempt to avert his threatened doom!Against the view that "the sons of God" refer to fallen angels Matthew 22:30 is often cited. But when the contents of this verse are closely studied it will be found there is, really, nothing in it which conflicts with what we have said above. Had our Lord said, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God" and stopped there, the objection would have real force. But the Lord did not stop there. He added a qualifying clause about the angels: He said "as the angels of God in heaven." The last two words make all the difference. The angels in heaven neither marry nor are they given in marriage. But the angels referred to in Genesis 6 as the "sons of God" were no longer in heaven: as Jude 6 expressly informs us "they left their own principality." They fell from their celestial position and came down to earth, entering into unlawful alliance with the daughters of men. This, we are assured, is the reason why Christ modified and qualified His assertion in Matthew 22:30. The angels of God in heaven do not marry, but those who left their own principality did. http://www.davidcox.com.mx/library/P/Pink%20-%20Gleanings%20in%20Genesis%20Commentary.pdf

 

3). Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record on Genesis 6:1, 2: “On the other hand, modern Christians have often attempted to make the story more palatable intellectually by explaining the “sons of God” as Sethites and the “daughters of men” as Cainites, with their union representing the breaking down of the wall of separation between believers and unbelievers. Another possible interpretation which avoids supernaturalistic implications is that the “sons of God” referred to kings and nobles, in which the case the commingling so described is merely an account of rayalty marrying commoners. Neither of these naturalistic interpretations, however, explain why the progeny of such unions would be “giants” or why they would lead to universal corruption and violence. Although Scripture does teach that believers should not wed unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 7:39), there is no intimation that this particular is unforgivable or more productive of general moral deterioration than other sins. Regardless of intellectual difficulties, it does seem clear that something beyond the normal and natural is described here in these verses. The interpretation of the passage obviously turns of the meaning of the phrase “sons of God” (bene Elohim). In the New Testament, of course, this term is used with reference to all who have been born again through personal faith in Christ (John 1:12; Romans 8:14; etc.), and the concept of the spiritual relationship of believers to God as analogous to that of children to a father is also found in the Old Testament (Psalm 73:15; Hosea1:10; Deuteronomy 32:5; Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 43:6). Not one of these examples, however, uses the same phrase as Genesis 6:2, 4; furthermore, in each case the meaning is not really parallel to the meaning here in Genesis. Neither the descendants of Seth nor true believers of any sort have been previously referred to in Genesis as sons of God in any kind of spiritual sense and, except from Adam himself, they could not have been sons of God in a physical sense. In context, such a meaning would be strained, to say the least, in the absence of any kind of explanation. The only obvious and natural meaning without such clarification is that these beings were sons of God, rather than of men, because they had been created, not born. Such a description, of course would apply only to Adam (Luke 3:38) and to the angels, whome God had directly created (Psalm 148:2, 5; Psalm 104:4; Collossians 1:16).”

 

4). In order to lend support to the view the sons of God were angels which I agree with, I want to interject some of Dake’s notes concerning a phrase in Genesis 6:9 where it says “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations”.

 

a). The Hebrew word “perfect” is the Hebrew word tamiym, Strongs number 8549. The Hebrew scholar Gesenius, gives this definition: complete, whole, entire, sound complete, whole, entire, whole, sound, healthful, complete, entire (of time), sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity, what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)]

 

b).This word is used 91 times in the Old Testament and translated 44 times “without blemish” referring to the physical perfection of sacrificial animals. In six other times it is translated “without spot” and is referring to sacrificial animals. In the majority of times this word is used it is referring to physical perfection. In his notes Dake mentions, “It means that Noah and his family were the only pure Adamites left. All other men [women, boys and girls] were a mixture of angel and men.” This was the whole purpose of the devil intermingling the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1-4. It was to corrupt the seed, the blood line of men to the degree it jeopardized the coming of the Messiah through the seed of men, and thus made the flood destroying those corrupted a necessity.