The Nephilim are not the only mysterious characters in Genesis 6:1-4. They may not even be the most mysterious characters. The identity of the “sons of God” is, in many ways, more crucial to understanding what is happening in Genesis 6 with any precision. Even after identifying the sons of God, there is a need to wrestle with the relationship between the sons of God and the Nephilim. We will consider both matters below.
Who are the sons of God?
There are three basic options and a fourth, which is a combination of the first two for identifying the sons of God, including:
- The sons of God are from the line of Seth- The sons of God are human beings from the line of Seth who are indiscriminate in their choice of brides.
- The sons of God are human rulers- The sons of God are human rulers, or “divine” kings representing God, who are indiscriminate in their choice of brides
- The sons of God are non-human beings- The sons of God are non-human beings (e.g., angels) who intermarry with human women.
- The sons of God are men from the line of Seth who represent God as the divine rulers on the earth.
Each of the four views recognizes some sort of boundary crossing in the marriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The idea is that the sons of God (whoever they are) make an independent judgment that crosses some unstated boundary, which is slightly different depending on their identity.
So, which interpretation is most likely? To answer that question, we will need to consider (a) the phrase “sons of God” and some associated terms, (b) some of the ancient Near Eastern parallels, and (c) decide (make an educated guess) as to what boundary seems to have been crossed in the context.
Where are the sons of God mentioned in Scripture?
First, let me note that the following is not an exhaustive treatment of all the relevant phrases. There is good evidence to suggest that “sons of God” could also refer to human rulers based on variations of the “sons of God” terminology (e.g., “son of God” in the singular, “gods” or “sons of the Most High” in Ps 82:2-4, etc).
Second, the exact phrase “sons of God” is not frequently used in the Hebrew Bible. Probably the most famous are Job 1:6 and 2:1, in which the “sons of God” present themselves to the Lord in something of a divine council. The use of “sons of God” in Job is clearly referencing non-human beings. In both verses, it is noted that hasatan (Satan is a rough transliteration of the Hebrew word hasatan, which is a combination of the definite article “ha” and the noun “satan”) came with the “sons of God.” This suggests that the sons of God may be angelic.
Perhaps the more significant passage for the interpretation of a Genesis text is Deuteronomy 32:8; however, the textual variant in 32:8 makes using the passage difficult. The variant involves the following:
- Masoretic text (Hebrew text)- “…he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the sons of Israel.”
- Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible)- “…he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God.”
- Dead Sea Scrolls- “…he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.”
While I tend to think the “Sons of God” reading is likely original, the “Sons of Israel” reading does complicate the use of Deuteronomy 32:8 for the interpretation of “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4. Overall, limiting the textual evidence to the exact phrase “sons of God” suggests that the “sons” were non-human/semi-divine beings, particularly if Deuteronomy 32:8 is rendered “sons of God” or “angels of God” instead of “sons of Israel.”
What can we now conclude about the sons of God?
Concluding that “sons of God” refers to semi-divine beings raises several interesting questions. We will address two of them. First, why would human beings be held responsible for the actions of the “sons of God”? This question assumes that (a) verse three involves divine action against the “taking” described in verses 1 and 2 and (b) verses 1-8 form a unified introduction to the narrative of the flood.
Part of the answer to this first question requires us to understand the verb “take” within the context of marriage agreements. While it may be tempting to think that the “sons of God” are forcibly and indiscriminately “taking” women, the Hebrew verb is generally used in the context of a marital agreement (Gen 4:19; 11:29; 12:19; 20:2, 3; 25:1). The scene is not one of a group of powerful beings pillaging the daughters of the human race at a whim, but of an agreed-upon union between the sons of God and the daughters of men. If we understand intermarriage to entail human consent of some sort, the question of human responsibility is largely resolved. The “daughters of men” were not taken by force but given in marriage to the sons of God.
Second, why would the Bible include such an episode? This latter question is more complex, and any answer is, to some degree, speculative. In my view, what we have in Genesis 6:1-8 is a counter-point to certain other ancient Near Easter flood myths. For instance, the Atrahasis Myth (the Mesopotamian epic of the creation of humankind and, ultimately, the worldwide flood) includes:
- The creation of human beings to take on the work previously performed by lower gods.
- Ellil, one of the great gods, was disturbed by the noise of the growing human population and devised plans to reduce the noise by reducing the human population.
- Ea (also known as Enki) informed Atrahasis (a human hero) of Ellil’s displeasure and schemes to reduce the human population. He also advised Atrahasis about how to minimize the effects of Ellil’s efforts.
- Unable to reduce the “noise” through other means, Ellil calls for a worldwide flood.
The Atrahasis Myth addresses the roots of human toil and suffering but also offers a rationale for the destruction of humankind in a flood. After multiple attempts at curtailing the growth of humankind, Ellil decides that he will. The difference between Atrahasis and Genesis is that the multiplication of humanity is not the primary concern but the means of that multiplication and the wickedness that began to multiply with humankind. Whereas the Ellil “addressed the gods, his sons” to curtail the growth of humanity, the Genesis narrative pictures the “sons of God” intermarrying with an already growing human population to ensure the longevity of humanity.
As such, both Atrahasis and Genesis accounts are, to some degree, related to the growth and continuation of humankind. In Atrahasis, the humans conspire against the gods (particularly Ellil) to preserve themselves. In Genesis, the humans intermarry with the “sons of God” for a somewhat similar purpose if we understand v. three as God’s proclamation that these efforts have not worked. However, unlike the Atrahasis Epic, the toil, suffering, and death mankind experiences in Genesis is brought about by disobedience to God’s command. As such, human attempts to overcome the curse placed on them and all of creation by achieving some sort of greatness or longevity are wrongheaded. Obedience, not greatness or immortality, is the key to overcoming the challenges humankind faces.
On some level, it doesn’t matter what boundary was crossed, only that a boundary was crossed. Given the difficulties associated with interpreting Genesis 6:1-3, we need to recognize that coming to a firm, uncompromising conclusion may be a mistake. Ultimately, as I’ve considered these passages throughout my career, I have changed my perspective multiple times.
In the end, Genesis 6 reminds us of the futility of seeking a destiny apart from God. While it seems that the most likely referent for the “sons of God” is a set of non-human beings, we need not sensationalize that conclusion by spinning out theories about, for instance, the Nephilim (which I’ll discuss in the next part of this series). Instead, we should focus on what is absolutely clear: (1) God sets boundaries that we are not to cross, and (2) while crossing those boundaries might seem to benefit us…doing so will always be to our detriment.
Photo Credit: Image created using AI technology and subsequently edited and reviewed by our editorial team.
