Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
The Gospel in Genesis 6:1-8

The Gospel in Genesis 6:1-8

Last updated on: April 27, 2020 at 1:53 pm by Taylor Drummond

The Gospel in Genesis 6:1-8 2020-04-27T13:53:53-05:00 Taylor Drummond

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Every year, Christians embarking on a “Bible-in-a-year” reading program stumble upon and are confounded by Genesis 6:1-8 within the first few days of their plan. And with good reason, this passage is one of the most debated texts in Scripture. It contains the enigmatic story of the marriage between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” and one of only two references to the mysterious “Nephilim.” Questions abound: Who are these sons of God? What did they do wrong? Who were the Nephilim? Why is this strange passage in the Bible?

Some have dismissed this text as merely a mythological story not meant to be taken literally. However, as I have argued, Genesis is history and such a view fails to take that into account. In this article I want to do two things: 1) Help you navigate the various interpretations of this hard text; and 2) Show you how even such strange and obscure passages proclaim the gospel.

Toward the first end, we will examine the main interpretations of this passage and then offer what we think is the best understanding. For a more thorough examination of this passage, I encourage you to read what I’ve written here. There are three main interpretations of this complex passage. The Angelic View, the Sethite View, and the Tyrant View.

The Angelic View

The first and oldest view is that the “sons of God” are angels who left heaven to marry human women. In this case, the sin of the sons of God is leaving their proper place and engaging in sexual relations which cross the boundary between divine and human and the Nephilim are the offspring of this supernatural-natural union. This is the oldest interpretation and can be found in early extra-biblical Jewish literature (1 Enoch 6 and Jubilees 4-5). The two main arguments for this view are that the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels in the Old Testament and that the 2 Peter and Jude interpret the passage this way.

However, this view has some serious problems. First, the phrase sons of God is only used two times in the OT outside of Genesis 6, both in Job (1:6, 2:1). That means that it is very difficult to assign it a specific meaning in Genesis 6 based off only two other occurrences not even in the near context.

Second, the New Testament evidence is not nearly as conclusive as the angelic proponents claim. Second Peter leaves the sin of the angels unspecified and is debatable whether the sin in Jude is of a sexual nature.[1] In fact, the NT moves in the other direction by indicating that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30).

Third, there is no reason in the text to understand the Nephilim as the offspring of the union, in fact it, the phrase “and also afterwards” as well as the mention of the Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 indicates that they were not unique offspring of a angelic-human union.

Fourth, Genesis 6:1-8 is the prologue to the Flood narrative, the paradigmatic act of judgment in the Old Testament. However, the Flood is a judgment against mankind, not angels! Yahweh decided that His spirit will not remain in man forever (6:3), He saw that the wickedness of man was great (6:5), He regretted that He had made man (6:6), and said that He will blot out man from the face of the earth (6:7). It is inconsistent with God’s justice to argue that God judged humanity for the sin of angelic beings, and any attempt to make the “daughters of men” active in the sin reads into the text what is not there. Much more could be said, but these problems are serious enough to render this view improbable.

The Sethite View

This view takes the “sons of God” to be from the line of Seth and the “daughters of men” to be from the line of Cain. The sin in this case is intermarriage between the godly and wicked lines and the Nephilim are not the fruit of the union. This view has ample support in church history, including such weighty figures as John Calvin and Martin Luther.

This view has three main arguments to support it. First, the immediate context of Genesis 4-5 with the contrasting genealogies of Cain and Seth (each containing a Lamech and an Enoch), sets the reader up to expect a contrast in 6:1-8. Second, marriage within a particular family is a theme of Genesis (24:4, 27:46-28:9). Third, The Pentateuch elsewhere uses the language of sonship to refer to God’s covenant people (Ex. 4:22-23).

This view has one major problem with it: it requires that a shift from the generic use of “man” in verse 1 to a specific use of “man” in verse 2. Verses 1-2 say, “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.” Clearly in the first verse, “man” refers generically to all mankind, not just the line of Cain, and the “daughters” refers to all of their daughters. There is nothing in the text that suggests a shift in the meaning of “man” between verse one and two such that it refers to mankind generically in verse one but only to the line of Cain in verse two.

The Tyrant View

This last view argues that the “sons of God” are despotic tyrants and the “daughters of men” are regular human women. In this view, the sin described is that of forceful polygamy, the tyrants took whichever women pleased them. This view has three main arguments in support of it. First, in ancient near eastern culture, kings and rulers are often referred to as “a son of the God.” Second, the Bible itself designates judges and kings as God’s son (2 Sam. 7:14, Ps. 82:6). Third, Genesis 4 shows the origins of a despotic line in Cain, who founded a city and named it after his son, and Lamech, who engaged in violence and polygamy.

However, like the other views, this view has some problems. First, while individual kings are styled as a “son of God,” there is no ANE or OT background for groups of kings being styled as such, and when the language is used of an individual king it is almost never found in straightforward historical narrative.

Second, there is no evidence elsewhere in the context of Genesis for the descendants of Cain being labeled “sons of God,” and it would be an odd way of referring to a wicked lineage.

Third, as we mentioned earlier, the Nephilim are most likely not the offspring of the marriage described in verse 2.

Is There an Answer?

In light of the complexity of this debate, I tentatively suggest a combination of the second and third views which I believe acknowledges the strengths of both while avoiding their particular weaknesses. I believe the Sethite View is correct that the “sons of God” are men from the line of Seth. Both other views rely on strained connections with distant passages to substantiate their interpretation and do not do full justice to the immediate context of Genesis 4-5 which clearly involves a contrast between wicked and godly lineages.

However, I believe the Tyrant View is correct that the sin described is not intermarriage between two lines, but forceful polygamy. The similarities between Genesis 6:1-4 and the account of Lamech in Genesis 4 show how the godly line of Seth became corrupt just like the line of Cain, resulting in only Noah and his family finding favor in God’s eyes out of all mankind. Furthermore, order of the words “saw…good…took” in verse 2 is a clear allusion back to Eve’s sin in Genesis 3:6. The sin described is that these men took whichever women they desired as their wives and disregarded the creation pattern of monogamy (Gen. 2:24).

So then, the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are men from the line of Seth who became like Lamech in violent polygamy and took whatever women they desired from all the daughters of mankind. This resulted in God’s judgment of limiting the human lifespan to 120 years and destroying all life on the face of the earth in the deluge.

Where’s the Gospel?

Much more could be said about this passage, but I want to point out of even such a strange and obscure passage shows quite clearly the gospel. The three main themes of this passage are mankind’s sinfulness, God’s righteous judgment, and God’s grace. Here we see a picture of the utter sinfulness and depravity of mankind, “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6:5).

In response to mankind’s sinfulness, God announces His judgment. He will not tolerate sin and declares that He will blot out every living creature from the face of the earth. His judgment is so complete as to return the earth to its state of being “formless and void” with the waters covering the face of the deep. God’s righteousness is displayed in His terrible wrath against sin.

But sin will not be triumphant. The passage ends with a hint of grace in verse 8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” Here is the first use of the word “grace” in the Bible (though the concept is present earlier). Just at the point when sin seems to reign triumphant, God’s good creation is ruined, and His image will be wiped off the face of the earth – at just that point we read of Noah – as a son, in the image of God (Gen. 5:3), whose name means rest, who will bring relief from the curse (Gen. 5:29), and (most importantly) who has found favor in the eyes of Yahweh.

The main point of Genesis 6:1-8 ties these three themes together: Mankind is totally depraved and deserving of God’s wrath which He will pour out on all creation except those who find refuge in His grace though a chosen representative. What a clear statement of the gospel!

I hope this is encouraging to you, that these texts are not impossible to understand and that even texts which are debated among Christians still proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the better Noah, who will grant ultimate rest, reverse the curse, and save from the coming wrath those who take refuge in Him.

[1] For a full treatment of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, see Keil, C. F. Commentary on the OT: Pentateuch. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001, p. 83-85n1.

Previous Post

April 21, 2020

Why This Public School Employee Chooses Homeschool: A Response to Elizabeth Bartholet

Next Post

April 30, 2020 When Will We Learn to Stop Fearing Death?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category #ShoutYourAbortion 10 Commandments 2016 Election 2017 2020 Election Abortion Accelerate Books Adultery America Andy Stanley Arminianism Ashley Madison Atonement B&H Academic Baptism Barry Horner Beauty Biblical Elders Billy Graham Blog Book Review Bruce Jenner Caitlyn Jenner Calvin Calvinism Cheating Chick-fil-A Children Christ Christian History Christian Living Christian Podcasts Christianity Christmas Church History Church Leadership Civil Disobedience Constitutional Coronavirus Culture Death Demoninations Discipleship Doctrine Doctrine of God Donald Trump Ecclesiology Entertainment Eschatology Ethics Evangelical Evangelism Evil Evolution Fear Forgive Yourself Forgiveness Francis Chan Future Israel Gay Marriage Gender Genesis George Floyd Gospel Government Gun Control Halloween hamartiology Heavenly Reward Hermeneutics History Hollywood Holy Spirit Homeschool Homosexual Homosexuality Hope Hospitality Humor Husband Infant Baptism Interview Jesus John Piper Josh Duggar Joshua Harris Judgment Justice Kathy Griffin Kim Davis Leadership Logic Love Manhood Marriage Martin Luther Messianic Prophecy Miscarriage Mocking Modesty Money Movie Reviews Music Music Review Netflix New Testament Obergefell Old Testament Parenting Pastor Pastoring Persecution Planned Parenthood Podcast Politics Pop Culture Pornography Prayer Preaching Predestination Pride Prosperity Gospel Rachel Held Evans Racism Ravi Zacharias Redemption Reformation 500 Reformation Day Reformed Theology Relationship Repentance Salvation Same Sex Marriage Satan Satire Scripture Seminary Sex Sin slavery Sola Scriptura Soteriology Sovereignty Spiritual Gifts Spurgeon Star Wars Steven Furtick Suffering Sufficiency of Scripture Sunday School Supreme Court Technology Testimony The Church The Lord of the Rings The Problem of Evil The Shack Theology Theonomy Tithing Transgenderism Tullian Tchividjian Uncategorized Universalism Vanity Fair Video Games Virgin Birth Voting Wife Women Worldview Worship

Select a Month June 2025 April 2025 March 2025 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 June 2023 April 2023 March 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz