The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men

The following article was written by Bob Deffinbaugh, who is a pastor/teacher and elder at Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas. This featured story was obtained through Bible.org.

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-8)

Introduction  

Attempts to produce a master race did not begin with Adolf Hitler, nor have they ended with him. Our generation seems to have a fixation on super human. Superman, the Bionic Man, the Bionic Woman, Hulk, and many other television characters contribute to the same theme. And this super-race is not to be understood as dominating only the realm of fiction. It is almost frightening to realize that genetic scientists are seriously working to create the master humans, while abortions can be employed to systematically eliminate the undesirables. I read an article in the paper the other day which gave an account of one organization that makes available to certain women the sperm of contributing Nobel Prize winners.

It is much more difficult to determine the ultimate outcome of these attempts than it is to find the origin of the movement. It’s inception is recorded in the sixth chapter of the book of Genesis. I must say as we begin to study these verses that there is more disagreement here per square inch than almost anywhere in the Bible. By-and-large it is the conservative scholars who have the most difficulty with this passage. That is because those who don’t take the Bible either literally or seriously are quick to call the account a myth. Conservative scholars must explain the event for what Moses claimed it to be, an historical event. While great differences arise in the interpretation of this passage, the issue is not one that is fundamental—one that will affect the critical issues which underlie one’s eternal salvation. Those with whom I most heartily disagree here are usually my brothers in Christ.

Who are the ‘Sons of God’?

The interpretation of verses 1-8 hinges upon the definition of three key terms, ‘the sons of God’ (verses 2,4), ‘the daughters of men’ (verses 2,4), and the ‘Nephilim’ (verse 4). There are three major interpretations of these terms which I will attempt to describe, beginning with that which, in my mind is the least likely, and ending with the one that is most satisfactory.

VIEW 1: THE MERGING OF THE UNGODLY CAINITES WITH THE GODLY SETHITES

The ‘sons of God’ are generally said by those who hold this view to be the godly men of the Sethite line. The ‘daughters of men’ are thought to be the daughters of the ungodly Cainite. The Nephilim are the ungodly and violent men who are the product of this unholy union.

The major support for this interpretation is the context of chapters 4 and 5. Chapter four describes the ungodly generation of Cain, while in chapter five we see the godly Sethite line. In Israel, separation was a vital part of the religious responsibility of those who truly worshipped God. What took place in chapter six was the breakdown in the separation which threatened the godly seed through whom Messiah was to be born. This breakdown was the cause of the flood which would follow. It destroyed the ungodly world and preserved righteous Noah and his family, through whom the promise of Genesis 3:15 would be fulfilled.

While this interpretation has the commendable feature of explaining the passage without creating any doctrinal or theological problems, what it offers in terms of orthodoxy, it does at the expense of accepted exegetical practices.

First and foremost this interpretation does not provide definitions that arise from within the passage or which even adapt well to the text. Nowhere are the Sethites called the ‘the sons of God.’

The contrast between the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain may well be overemphasized. I am not at all certain that the line of Seth, as a whole, was godly. While all of the Cainite line appears to be godless, only a handful of the Sethites are said to be godly. The point which Moses makes in chapter 5 is that God has preserved a righteous remnant through whom His promises to Adam and Eve will be accomplished. One has the distinct impression that few were godly in these days (cf. 6:5-7, 12). It seems that only Noah and his family could be called righteous at the time of the flood. Would God have failed to deliver any who were righteous?

Also, the ‘daughters of men’ can hardly be restricted to only the daughters of the Cainites. In verse 1 Moses wrote, “Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them” (Genesis 6:1).

It is difficult to conclude that the ‘men’ here are not men in general or mankind. It would follow that the reference to their ‘daughters’ would be equally general. To conclude that the ‘daughters of men’ in verse two is some different, more restrictive group is to ignore the context of the passage.

For these reasons and others, I must conclude that this view is exegetically unacceptable. While it meets the test of orthodoxy it fails to submit to the laws of interpretation.

VIEW 2: THE DESPOT INTERPRETATION

Recognizing the deficiencies of the first view, some scholars have sought to define the expression ‘the sons of God’ by comparing it with the languages of the Ancient Near East. It is interesting to learn that some rulers were identified as the son of a particular god. In Egypt, for example, the king was called the son of Re.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is used for men in positions of authority:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges who acted in God’s name (Exodus 21:6, following the marginal reading of the NASV).

God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers (literally, the gods, Psalm 82:1, cf. also 82:6).

This interpretation, like the fallen angel view, has its roots in antiquity. According to this approach the ‘sons of God’ are nobles, aristocrats, and kings.

These ambitious despots lusted after power and wealth and desired to become ‘men of a name’ that is, somebodies (cf. 11:4)! Their sin was ‘not intermarriage between two groups—whether two worlds, (angels and man), two religious communities (Sethite and Cainite), or two social classes (royal and common)—but that the sin was polygamy.’ It was the same type of sin that the Cainite Lamech practiced, the sin of polygamy, particularly as it came to expression in the harem, the characteristic institution of the ancient oriental despot’s court. In this transgression the ‘sons of God’ frequently violated the sacred trust of their office as guardians of the general ordinances of God for human conduct.

In the context of Genesis 4 and 5 we do find some evidence which could be interpreted as supportive of the despot view. Cain did establish a city, named after his son Enoch (verse 4:17). Dynasties would be more easily established in an urban setting. So, also, we know that Lamech did have two wives (verse 4:19). Although this is far from a harem, it could be viewed as a step in that direction. Also the view defines ‘the daughters of men’ as womankind, and not just the daughters of the Cainite line.

In spite of these factors, this interpretation would probably never have been considered had it not been for the ‘problems’ which the fallen angel view is said to create. While pagan kings were referred to as sons of a foreign deity, no Israelite king was so designated. True, nobles and those in authority were occasionally called ‘gods,’ but not the ‘sons of God.’ This definition chooses to ignore the precise definition given by the Scriptures themselves.

Further, the whole idea of power hungry men, seeking to establish a dynasty by the acquisition of a harem seems forced on the passage. Who would ever have found this idea in the text itself, unless it were imposed upon it? Also, the definition of the Nephilim as being merely violent and tyrannical men seems inadequate. Why should these men be sorted out for special consideration if they were merely like all the other men of that day (cf. 6:11, 12)? While the despot view does less violence to the text than does the Cainite/Sethite view, it seems to me to be inadequate.

VIEW 3: THE FALLEN ANGEL INTERPRETATION

According to this view, the ‘sons of God’ of verses 2 and 4 are fallen angels, which have taken the form of masculine human-like creatures. These angels married women of the human race (either Cainites or Sethites) and the resulting offspring were the Nephilim. The Nephilim were giants with physical superiority and therefore established themselves as men of renown for their physical prowess and military might. This race of half human creatures was wiped out by the flood, along with mankind in general, who were sinners in their own right (verse 6:11,12).

My basic presupposition in approaching our text is that we should let the Bible define its own terms. If biblical definitions are not to be found then we must look at the language and culture of contemporary peoples. But the Bible does define the term ‘the sons of God’ for us.

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan also came among them (Job 1:6).

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came among them to present himself before the Lord (Job 2:1).

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7, cf. Psalm 89:6; Daniel 3:25).

Scholars who reject this view readily acknowledge the fact that the precise term is clearly defined in Scripture. The reason for rejecting the fallen angel interpretation is that such a view is said to be in violation of both reason and Scripture.

The primary passage which is said to be problematical is that found in Matthew’s gospel, where our Lord said, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).

We are told that here our Lord said that angels are sexless, but is this really true? Jesus compared men in heaven to angels in heaven. Neither men nor angels are said to be sexless in heaven but we are told that in heaven there will be no marriage. There are no female angels with whom angels can generate offspring. Angels were never told to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as was man.

When we find angels described in the book of Genesis, it is clear that they can assume a human-like form, and that their sex is masculine. The writer to the Hebrews mentions that angels can be entertained without man’s knowing it (Hebrews 13:2). Surely angels must be convincingly like men. The homosexual men of Sodom were very capable of judging sexuality. They were attracted by the ‘male’ angels who came to destroy the city (cf. Genesis 19:1ff, especially verse 5).

In the New Testament, two passages seem to refer to this incident in Genesis 6, and to support the angel view:

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (II Peter 2:4).

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

These verses would indicate that some of the angels who fell with Satan were not content with their ‘proper abode’ and therefore began to live among men (and women) as men. God’s judgment upon them was to place them in bonds so that they can no longer promote Satan’s purposes on earth as do the unbound fallen angels who continue to do his bidding.

The result of the union between fallen angels and women is rather clearly implied to be the Nephilim. While word studies have produced numerous suggestions for the meaning of this term, the biblical definition of this word comes from its only other instance in Scripture, Numbers 13:33.

There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.

This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ‘sons of God,’ it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the ungodly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ‘in Satan’s pocket,’ Satan knew from God’s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood.

Genesis 6 describes a desperate attempt on the part of Satan to attack the godly remnant that is named in chapter 5. So long as a righteous seed is preserved, God’s promise of salvation hangs over the head of Satan, threatening of his impending doom.

The daughters of men were not raped or seduced as such. They simply chose their husbands on the same basis that the angels selected them—physical appeal. Now if you were an eligible woman in those days, who would you choose? Would you select a handsome, muscle-bulging specimen of a man, who had a reputation for his strength and accomplishments, or what seemed to be in comparison a ninety-pound weakling?

Women looked for the hope of being the mother of the Savior. Who would be the most likely father of such a child? Would it not be a ‘mighty man of renown,’ who would also be able to boast of immortality? Some of the godly Sethites did live to be nearly 1000 years old, but the Nephilim did not die, if they were angels. And so the new race began.

Gog and Magog

The first mention of Gog and Magog occurs in the Book of Ezekiel (Chapters 38–39). There are some biblical historians and theologians that believe Gog is an individual and Magog is his land, while other scholars think Gog and Magog are two separate nations. In the Book of Revelation (20:8), Gog and Magog together refers to the hostile nations in the world. Regardless of the various theories, the end results will produce a major war, unlike any mankind has seen before.

The Jewish and Christian Concept

According to the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, this land is a prophesied enemy nation of God's people in accordance with the words of the Prophet Ezekiel. 

The Gog/Magog prophecy is meant to be fulfilled at the approach of what the Christians call the "End Times" and the Jews refer to as "End of the Age". 

The Christian interpretation is powerfully apocalyptic: making Gog and Magog allies of Satan against the Great Creator at the end of the millennium, as can be read in the Book of Revelation.  Jewish eschatology views Gog and Magog as enemies to be defeated by the Messiah, which will usher in the "Age of the Messiah".

In the Jewish Midrash it states: After the failure of the anti-Roman Bar Kokhba revolt [in the 2nd century A.D.], which was led by Simon bar Kokhba, the Jews looked to a human leader as the promised messiah and began to conceive of the Messianic Age in supernatural terms. 

They [the Jews] believed a forerunner, known as Messiah ben Joseph, would come and defeat Israel's enemies, which are identified as Gog and Magog. Messiah ben Joseph is purported to prepare the way for the Messiah ben David (this is indicative of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus Christ in Christian literature), then the dead would rise to life, divine judgment would be instituted and the righteous and worthy would be rewarded.

The exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, treat Gog and Magog as two names for the same nation who will come against Israel in mankind's final war. The rabbis associated no specific nation or territory with them beyond a location to the north of Israel.  However, the Jewish scholar, Shlomo Yitzchaki, who today is commonly known as Rashi, identified the Christians as their allies and said God would thwart their plan to kill all Israel.

During the era of the Greek and Roman Empires, the 1st century A.D. Jewish scholar and historian, Titus Flavius Josephus, identified the Gog and Magog people as Scythians, who were horse-riding barbarians from around the Don and the Sea of Azov, located in Eastern Europe. The Scythians, who lived during Classical Antiquity (600 B.C. - 300 A.D.), were among the earliest peoples to master mounted warfare.

Josephus the Historian explained the Scythians were descendants of Magog the Japhethite [who, in turn, was descended from Noah's oldest son, Japheth] and conveyed the tradition that Gog and Magog were locked up by Alexander the Great behind iron gates in the "Caspian Mountains", which most scholars generally identify with the Caucasus Mountains. This legend must have been current in contemporary Jewish circles by the 1st century A.D., which also coincided with the beginning of the Christian Era. A few centuries later, this material was extremely embellished in the 7th century A.D. literary work, Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which is noted for shaping and influencing Christian eschatological thinking in the Middle Ages.

The Muslim Concept

In the Qur'an, Gog and Magog are referred to as Yajuj and Majuj, adversaries of Dhul-Qarnayn, whom are widely equated with Cyrus the Great and likened unto al-Iskanadar (Alexander the Great) in Islam. 

Geographic Muslim scholars identified them at first with Turkic tribes from Central Asia and later with the Mongols. In modern times they [Yajuj and Majuj] remain associated with apocalyptic thinking, especially in the United States and the Muslim world.

According to Muslim tradition, the diverse comparison of Gog and Magog - with the legend of Alexander and the Iron Gates - was propagated throughout the Near East in the early centuries of the Christian era. In Surah 18 of the Qur'an, Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog) are suppressed by Dhul-Qarnayn "the two-horned one", which is commonly interpreted to mean either, Cyrus the Great or Iskandar (Alexander the Great). Dhul-Qarnayn, who also is identified in the Hadith as a figure empowered by Allah (God) to erect a wall between mankind and Gog and Magog, journeyed to the ends of the world; and, met "a people who scarcely understood a word" but helped to build a barrier that would separate them from the people of Yajuj and Majuj, who "do great mischief on earth". They did agree to build the barricade, but warned that when the time comes [during the Last Age], Allah will remove the barrier and Yajuj and Majuj will swarm through.

The early Muslim traditions were summarized by Zakariya al-Qazwini, a notable 13th century B.C. Persian physician, astronomer, and geographer. His summations were found in two popular works, cosmographical and geographical, with the cosmographical entitled, "Marvels of Creatures and the Strange Things Existing" and his geographical dictionary "Monument of Places and History of God's Bondsmen". Gog and Magog, he says, lived near to the sea that encircles the Earth and can be counted only by Allah; they were only half the height of a normal man, with claws instead of nails and a hairy tail and huge hairy ears which they use as mattress and cover for sleeping. They scratch at their wall each day until they almost break through, and each night Allah restores it, but when they do break through they will be so numerous that "their vanguard is in Syria and their rear in Khorasan".

When Yajuj and Majuj were identified with actual people it was the Turks, who threatened Baghdad and northern Iran; later, when the Mongols destroyed Baghdad in 1258 A.D., it was they who were considered Gog and Magog. 

Depiction of Caliph Al-Wathiq

The wall dividing them from civilized people was normally placed towards Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in the year 842 A.D. the Caliph Al-Wathiq had a dream in which he saw that it had been breached, and sent an official named Sallam to investigate [the wall]. Sallam returned a little over two years later and reported that he had seen the wall and also the tower where Dhul Qarnayn had left his building equipment, and all was still intact. It is not entirely clear what Sallam saw, but he may have reached the Jade Gate (known today as Yumen Pass), the westernmost customs point on the border of China. 

Somewhat later the 14th-century traveller Ibn Battuta reported that the wall was sixty days' travel from the city of Zeitun, which is on the coast of China; the translator notes that Ibn Battuta has confused the Great Wall of China with that built by Dhul-Qarnayn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over many centuries, the theory of Gog and Magog have produced many coinciding similarities and obvious differences, yet one thing remains intact among the Abrahamic religions: they all agree that a prophetic Gog and Magog War will definitely occur one day. Some scholars and theologians of religion believe this catastrophic war is currently on the near horizon and that mankind needs to prepare for such an apocalyptic event.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him," ~  Yechezkel (Ezekiel) 38:2 [Tanakh:Nevi'im]

"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." ~ Revelation 20:8 [Holy Bible]

"They said, “O Zul-Qarnain, the Yajuj and Majuj are spreading chaos in the land. Can we pay you, to build between us and them a wall?” He said, “What my Lord has empowered me with is better. But assist me with strength, and I will build between you and them a dam.” ~ The Cave:18.94-95 [Qur'an]