And it came to pass when mankind began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them,
The chapter that ends in a flood begins quietly: the human family grows, and daughters are born. Yet this one line opens one of the darkest episodes in Scripture, and commentators do not agree on what happened next.
One writer places this verse late in the world before the flood, and takes the "sons of God" of the next verse to be angelic beings:
As we open Genesis 6 we come to the later centuries of the age before the flood. The population had grown greatly, and human wickedness began to rise to a climax. Many have understood the term "sons of God" to mean men of Seth's line — the line of faith — who fell away and married daughters of Cain's line. But we agree with those who take the term to mean beings of an angelic order. That is plainly its sense in Scriptures such as Job 1:6, Job 2:1 and Job 38:7.
Commentators differ. Others read the phrase as the godly family line traced in the chapter before:
It was not long before mankind multiplied greatly on earth. The dreadful effects of sin multiplied with them. The corrupt mixture of "the sons of God" with "the daughters of men" shows this. We have seen in chapter 5 that the line of Seth kept "the likeness of God" in some measure at least. That is why they are called "the sons of God": they were separate from the evils of the line of Cain.
A third writer tests both views against how the Old Testament uses these two phrases:
There is no proof in the text that the daughters of men were only descendants of the Cainites. The text supports the view that "daughters of men" means the natural increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. The theory that "sons of God" must mean godly people also cannot stand. The Old Testament never calls believers "sons of God"… The believer is a son of God, predestined to the son-place, with the spirit of sonship in him, crying "Abba, Father." That truth is revealed only in the New Testament.
Scripture tells us very little about what happened. One writer sees that silence as deliberate:
The Holy Spirit has veiled such a fact in the only manner that suited God and was proper for man. Here the principle of reserve does apply. It does not withhold from a person's soul the deepest blessing of grace for his deepest needs. It simply gives no more than what was fitting for man to learn about the matter. He has said enough… In my judgment "the sons of God" in Genesis mean the same beings as in Job. That shows their chief guilt: they crossed the boundaries God had appointed for His creatures. No wonder that total ruin quickly follows. It is really the basis of fact for more than a few tales of mythology which men have made up.
One writer reads verse 1 in the light of the chapter before, which ends with Enoch taken to heaven:
Enoch has passed off the scene. His walk as a stranger on earth ended when he was taken to heaven without dying… How little influence his life and his departure had upon the world is clear from the first two verses of chapter 6… The mingling of what is of God with what is of man is a special form of evil. It is a very effective tool in Satan's hand for spoiling the testimony of Christ on the earth. This mingling may often look like something very desirable… something to be glad about rather than to grieve over. But our judgement about it depends on the point of view we look at it from… Separation from all evil is God's principle. No one can break it without doing serious damage to the truth.
One writer sets Noah's moment beside our own:
Notice next the moment in which Noah gave his testimony. There is some likeness between that moment and the present. The Lord Himself pointed this out in Luke 17:26-27… So Noah lived at the close of an age. The storm clouds of divine judgment were gathering on every side. We too live at the close of an age, and once more the judgment of God is preparing for an evil world. Men are as careless and indifferent now as they were long ago.
- Multiply. Numbers grew, and evil grew with them. This verse opens the last centuries before the flood.
- Mystery. Commentators differ on the "sons of God": some read angelic beings (from Job), others the line of Seth.
- Measure. God said enough and no more, and human myth-making rushed to fill the gap.
- Mixing. Ruin starts when people erase the line between what is God's and what is man's. At the time it looks attractive.
- Mirror. The same carelessness marks the present, which is why the Lord pointed back to Noah's days.
that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and took themselves wives of all that they chose.
This verse opens one of the hardest passages in Genesis. Who are the "sons of God"? And why does their marriage to "the daughters of man" ruin the world? Commentators differ on who these sons are. They agree on what the union did.
One reading looks at how the Old Testament uses the phrase elsewhere, and at what Peter and Jude say.
There is no denying that the early books of the Bible use "sons of God" of angels (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7)... Old Testament usage gives no ground to question this. The phrase applies to angels, not to men — even faithful and righteous men. And the apostolic reference is indisputable. Peter and Jude view the awful crisis at the end of this age in the light of this scripture. They do so from quite different angles. Yet together they bear the testimony of the Holy Spirit that angels were meant here by "sons of God."
Another writer takes up the other half of the verse, and then the children this union produced.
The text supports the view that "daughters of men" means the natural increase of the whole human family, and not a special class. The theory that "sons of God" must mean godly people also fails. The Old Testament never applies the term "sons of God" to believers... The result of the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men was children who were heroes, men of the Name. Suppose the sons of God were only the godly descendants of Seth, who mixed with the descendants of Cain. Then it is hard to see why the offspring should be a special race, heroes, men of the Name. The giants were Nephilim, which means "the fallen ones."
Others read the sons as Seth's family marrying into the line of Cain. Their strongest support is the next verse.
But God's word in verse 3 settles this matter: "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh." So "the sons of God" were the responsible parties here. They took wives; the wives did not take them. So God calls the sons of God "men," insisting also that they are "flesh," not spirit, as angels are. So early in history, this event stands as a solemn warning. Believers must not yoke themselves with unbelievers.
One writer sets the looking and the taking in this verse beside the first temptation in Eden.
If the cleverest of enemies seduced Adam, and he followed the sight of his eye and the desire of his heart, then an enemy just as successful now seduces the sons of God... They take wives from all "whom they choose." They listen to other lords, for God is not in all their thoughts. Then it does not matter whether it is the promise of the serpent or the beauty of the daughters of men.
Whatever the sons were, the sin blends two things God kept apart. One writer sees here a change of tactics by the enemy.
The union of the sons of God with the daughters of men led to the most disastrous consequences. True, the fruit of that union seemed extremely fair in man's judgement... yet God's judgement was quite different... If the holy seed will not keep its purity, everything must be forfeited as far as testimony on the earth goes. Satan's first effort was to put the holy seed to death and so frustrate God's purpose. When that failed, he tried to gain his end by corrupting it.
The result of such blending runs only one way.
The effort of Satan has always been to wipe out the distinction between good and evil. The alliance of good with evil never purifies the evil, but always defiles the good. Absolute separation of the one from the other is always God's way.
One writer sets the identity question aside and points to what is not in doubt.
We need not stop to ask the exact meaning of the phrase "sons of God"... It is enough to note what Scripture shows. A wall of separation stood between those who were OF GOD and those who were of MEN. Breaking it down was the immediate cause of the terrible evils which brought down God's displeasure.
- Disputed — Commentators differ on the "sons of God." Some say angels, from Job's usage and from Peter and Jude. Others say Seth's line, since verse 3 calls them men and flesh.
- Undisputed — Both readings agree on the sin. A wall God had set between two orders came down, and that caused the terrible evils that followed.
- Seen — The sin starts at the eye. They looked, found the women fair, and followed the desire of the heart, as Adam did.
- Chosen — Then the will acts. They took wives of all whom they chose, and God had no place in the choice.
- Mixed — Mixture is Satan's second move, after putting the holy seed to death failed. The union looked fair to men and produced heroes. But mixing good with evil never lifts the evil; it only defiles the good. God's way is always complete separation.