I believe very strongly in the supernatural. I believe that Jesus really walked on water. I believe that the Israelites really crossed a deep part of the Red Sea on dry ground. I even believe that God created the entire universe in six days about six thousand years ago. So, when I say that I don’t believe that Genesis 6:4 is telling a story about angels mating with humans, please don’t think it’s because I don’t believe in angels.
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.
Many Bible scholars, pastors, and Sunday School teachers across the globe read that statement and affirm that during this time on earth there were angelic beings (the ’sons of God’) who raped or seduced human women (the ‘daughters of man’) and produced giant offspring. We know that David faced a giant, and we know that there were other giants in the land of Canaan, so this verse seems to provide an appropriate story of how such huge beings could have come to exist – they were the descendants of these half-angels.
Well, there are many problems with this interpretation, but I will focus on the three that I think are the most pressing. Then I will try to offer my explanation as to why this verse seems to indicate that we are dealing with a supernatural union, even though that is not – I believe – the case.
The first argument against interpreting Genesis 6:4 as referring to angelic and human cross-breeding is that, according to Jesus, angels aren’t exactly sexual beings. When the Sadducees think to trap Jesus by asking Him a question about marriage in heaven, He responds by saying, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). In fact, if Genesis 6:4 is making reference to the sexuality of angels, it would be the only place in the entire Bible to do so.
The second argument against the position is that Genesis 6 seems to indicate that this union being spoken of is one of the ‘last straws’, so to speak, before God destroyed the world with the flood. If the true perpetrators behind this debauchery were angelic, then why would flooding the world of men be a proper punishment?
Instead, we can read all through the Bible how God forbids the intermarriage between believers and unbelievers. While it is true that Job chapters 1 and 2 seem to use the term ’sons of God’ to refer to angelic beings in heaven, that is not the total extent of its meaning. There are many places in the Bible where the term ’sons of God’ is used referring to believing human beings (Deuteronomy 32:8, Matthew 5:9, and Romans 8:14, among others). In this scenario, if we assume that ’sons of God’ in Genesis 6 refers to believers – men of the line of Seth, then it would be natural to assume that ‘daughters of man’ refer to unbelieving partners from a less faithful line.
The benefit of this interpretation is that it dovetails nicely with the command repeated over and over again throughout Scripture to not condone inter-faith marriage. Moses delivered the command in Exodus 34:16. In Ezra 9, Ezra tears his clothes and pours out his heart in confession and repentance for the people because they had done exactly this: they had married women of pagan peoples. In Ezra 10, he even commands the men to put away these wives, even if they had children by them.
This command is repeated to the church in the New Testament. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” It is the clear testimony throughout the Bible that such an action is a heinous sin. Therefore, it seems most natural that such an act would provoke God’s anger in Genesis 6, leading to the flood.
The final argument against the angelic mating interpretation, however, is a little more open-and-shut, as far as I am concerned. We are told in Genesis 6:4 that these Nephilim – who, as the traditional interpretation goes, are the children of this union – are on the earth ‘afterward’. This is corroborated in Numbers 13, when in verse 33, the spies returning from Canaan reported that there were Nephilim in the land and that they were giants. It is here that another term is associated with this group of people – ‘the sons of Anak’ or the Anakim. This term will continue to be used throughout the Old Testament, and David’s Goliath is said to be one of these descendants of Anak.
The point is that these giants somehow survived the flood, since Numbers and 1 Samuel detail events long after the flood had ended. And since Genesis 7:22 makes a clear statement that “Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died” in the flood, we have to conclude that the ancestors of Goliath were on that ark. That means that the giants were descended from Noah.
The end of this mystery is settled very quickly at this point when we realize that we have recorded for us in Scripture the entire genealogy of Noah, going straight back to Adam, and there isn’t a single angel in the bunch. In fact, Genesis 5 – so close as to almost be taunting us with the answer to this riddle – contains the entire story of Noah’s ancestors. We have the names of their fathers, how long they lived, and when they died. There are no angels here.
So why does Genesis 6:4 sound like it’s referring to an angelic union then? It is because there is a strange parenthetical thought that is introduced into the middle of the statement about the Nephilim. I don’t believe that the author was intending to communicate that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but rather that the Nephilim arose at the same time that this sinful union (between believers and unbelievers) was taking place. The verse should probably be punctuated like this:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them), and also afterward. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
If you arrange the verse that way, it becomes a little clearer. We must remember that when these books were first written, there was no such thing as punctuation. They did not even put spaces between words. A big part of the job of the translator is actually in deciding how a particular verse ought to be punctuated. I believe that the church’s long mistaken interpretation of this verse stems from confusion in the minds of translators as to how exactly to arrange the thoughts of the sentence.
The implications for changing the prevailing interpretation of this verse would be felt in our understanding of angels and demons (since this would be the only place in the Bible where demons are shown to be able to take physical form and sexually assault humans), and also in our reading of Jude 6 – which is often connected to the improper understanding of Genesis 6:4. I also feel that it produces a better understanding of God’s anger leading up to the flood, and cements even stronger the wisdom of obeying the command in the Bible to not mix the faithful with the faithless. And I personally believe that it is disobedience to this last idea that has wreaked much of the havoc that we currently see on display in our churches. May we seek to be obedient to God’s commands in every area.