1
Gen 6:1-4--When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to
them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as
their wives any they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man
forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.
Who are the “daughters of man”? Human woman (no family classification)
Since “ha’adam” is used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in verse 1, it should
also be used as a generic term for mankind as a whole in v 2. Thus the daughters of
‘man’ are simply human women with no classification or family distinction. In
essence, based on the original language & the context-- these daughters cannot be
limited to the line of Cain. In fact, based on the preceding chapters mention of
‘daughters’ 9 times (5:4,7,10,13,16,19,22,26, 30)—the Sethite woman would be the
logical identity of the these daughters. However, this misses the point of the text.
Basically all that it is saying is that more women were born in the pre-flood world,
than one might expect based on the genealogies given in Gen 4-5. The Main focus of v
1 is: The multiplication of mankind (population expanse) and in particular the
existence of women. Verse 2 explains what specific role these human woman played.
Who are the “sons of God”? Angelic/celestial beings (possibly fallen or falling)
Evidence for angelic interpretation of “sons of God”:
 The original language: ‘Sons of God’ (Hebrew: bene ha’elohim) is Hebrew
idiom for angelic/celestial beings. The only other time the exact phrase is used
in Scripture is in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; & the LXX of Deut 32:8—all of which
clearly refer to celestial creatures. The closest other use of the phrase is in Ps
29:1 & 89:6, both of which refer to angels. There is no instance in Scripture
where this idiom refers to anything other than superhuman entities. The
closest argument against this would come with Ps 82. But the exact Hebrew
phrase is not used & more modern scholars are opting for a celestial
interpretation of this passage as well (see Michael Heiser)
 The context of Gen 6:2, 4-the “sons of God” & the “daughters of men” are
meant to be contrasted from each other. The contrast that is implied between
ha’adam (mankind, earthly sphere) & bene elohim (divine or heavenly sphere)
is achieved in an angelic view but not with a purely human view.
 The NT evidence (esp 2 Peter 2:4 & Jude 6, & possibly 1 Pet 3:19, 1 Cor
11:10)-- There is clear historical evidence that the angelic theory of Gen 6
existed during NT authorship (cf 1 Enoch 6-19; Jubilees 4: 15, 22; 5: 1;
Damascus Document 2: 17-19; 1QapGen 2: 1; Testament of Reuben 5: -7;
Testament of Naphtali 3:5; 2 Barach 56: 10-14)—some of these writings even
describe the angels of Gen 6 as being locked away in chains (similar to 2 Pet 2:4
& Jude 6). There is no biblical or historical record of any other chained angels
that would be relevant to NT readers besides the “sons of God” in Gen 6. As
Thomas R. Schreiner explains in regard to 2 Peter 2:4, “Peter’s readers would
2

naturally have understood the account in terms of such tradition unless Peter
indicated clearly that he was departing from the common understanding of his
day.” In addition, the simple fact that Peter followed his account of the
sinning angels with a description of the flood, allows a natural connection to be
drawn between 2 Pet 2:4-5 and Gen 6:1-4. Although Jude does not follow his
description of the sinning angels with a reference to the flood, he does show
familiarity with 1 Enoch by quoting the work in Jude 14-15. This is important
because 1 Enoch treats Genesis 6:1-4 as the sin of the angels. 1 Enoch also
describes the fallen angels from Genesis 6 as imprisoned (e.g. 1 En 10:4-7, 1214; 19:1; 20:2-3; 21:10). Based on this, Jude should offer an explanation to his
readers if he is referring to another group of chained angels. [ie, Jude has just
talked about angels being chained—he has also just showed his familiarity with 1
Enoch—this certainly favors that Jude agrees with 1 Enoch’s identification of the
angels being from Gen 6].
The History of interpretation- The angelic view can be dated back to the
early 3rd century BC (with parts of 1 Enoch). It was maintained by Jews &
Christians alike until late 2nd century AD, when Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai
proposed a human ‘nobles’ interpretation. The Sethite view did not originate
until the 3rd century AD, with Julius Africanus’ proposal. It was not
popularized until the 4th century AD when Augustine favored it. Regardless,
the angelic view dominated the first 300 years of Christian thought being
supported by such thinkers as: Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Lactantius (to name a few).
What about the NT statement that “angels do not marry”?
The most common objection to the angelic view comes in Jesus’ statement in Matt
22:30; Mark 12:25; and Luke 20:35-36. In these verses Jesus explains that, in the
resurrection believers’ will be like the “angels of God in heaven,” who do not marry.
Thus, some believe the sons of God in Gen 6 cannot be angels. But this assumption is
erroneous.
 First, the angelic beings referred to by Jesus are clearly elect and holy angels,
whose home is “in heaven.” This qualifying phrase distinguishes the angels
Jesus refers to from the angels in Jude 6 who “left their natural habitat” &
were punished for it. Although, the angels in heaven do not marry, the angels
referred to in Gen 6: 1-4 as sons of God were no longer in heaven as Jude 6
explains. Many theologians feel that the only reason for Christ to modify and
qualify his statement was to differentiate between the two groups of angels.
 Second, Jesus is speaking to Sadducees in these verses. Ironically, they did not
believe in angels or the resurrection (Acts 23:8). For Jesus to include angels in
the statement when the resurrection is the focus, probably hints at his attack
on their faulty belief system. Further, one has to ask: why would they know
that the angels of God do not marry? The only Scriptural implication of
angelic marriage is in the Gen 6 interpretation. If not this episode, what else is
Jesus referring to? (©Kris Shepard, All Rights Reserved, Only use w/ author permission)