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.
And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always plead with Man; for he indeed is flesh; but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.
This is God's own comment on a world sliding into corruption. He gives a reason ("he is flesh") and a number (120 years) — and commentators ask what that number limits: man's lifespan, or God's pleading with him.
A note on wording. The ESV reads, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever." The writers quoted here use an older translation: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." Their comments turn on that word "strive."
One writer sets this sentence against the violence and corruption filling the earth:
That was the condition of the whole scene, from one end to the other. Against all this corruption and violence now spreading over the earth, God marks out His judgment: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man." There may be, and there will be, a period of patience — as it says, "his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" — but the judgment still stands, and the day when God comes to deal with men will come. The Spirit will not always strive.
The reason God gives is not that man is weak in body. It is what man has shown himself to be. One commentary ties the phrase to Isaiah's words about flesh and spirit, and notes that translators have long disagreed here:
Translators and commentators differ a good deal over how to translate this verse and how far it reaches... But the sense is moral rather than physical existence, and the older English version gives it well enough. Some prefer "in his wandering" instead of "for that," and that may well be right. So Isaiah 31:3 says that Egypt is man and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit. Man had now proved himself no better. But when the LORD warns that His Spirit will not always plead, He is setting a limit to His patience. The hundred and twenty years refer, not to the length of man's life, but to the space given for repentance.
Another writer prefers the same alternative reading, and sets out the verse as he would render it:
He is flesh — mortal man — and not God... But De Wette, in his translation, takes the 120 years as the length of life. I believe that is a complete mistake. It is the time allowed for preaching repentance, and for building the ark. "In their wanderings" would be just as good as "because of," or better. The verse would then read: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man (or among men) in their wanderings — he is flesh — but his days shall be 120 years."
Another writer points out that people went on living far longer than 120 years:
It is strange that anyone should think this sets a limit to human life, which was then, and for generations afterwards, far longer. It is the limit of the Spirit's striving with that generation, and at the end of it the flood came. For them the end of the Spirit's striving and the end of their life came together.
God did not strive in silence. He used a preacher, and the long years while the ark was built:
So He was present by His Spirit in the days of Noah... His Spirit was then on the earth. In His patience God waited one hundred and twenty years while the ark was being built. His Spirit preached then. But He needed an instrument. The instrument was Noah. In him was the Spirit of Christ, and as the preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5) he brought the warning of coming judgment to the people around him. They did not listen. They went on in disobedience, were swept away by the flood, and are now the spirits in prison.
The set term also answers a question about those same souls. Once the term ran out, the striving stopped:
That is to say, His Spirit would strive through the testimony of Noah for a hundred and twenty years, and no longer. It would be a very strange thing if the Lord kept on striving by testimony with these people only (for he speaks only of them) after they had died.
One writer turns the verse into a guard against treating God's patience as permission:
Sinners, the time is soon coming when the drawbridge of mercy will be pulled right up... God holds back punishment, so men hold back repentance... But though men will not set limits to their sin, God does set limits to His patience.
- Cause — The verdict is moral, not physical. Man had proved himself to be nothing better than flesh, so God's Spirit will not plead with him forever.
- Gift — The 120 years are the space given for repentance, not a shortened lifespan. People went on living far longer for generations afterwards.
- Voice — The striving had a preacher. The Spirit of Christ was in Noah, who warned the people around him while the ark was built.
- Result — For that generation, the Spirit's striving and their lives ended together. Those who disobeyed are the spirits now in prison.
- Warning — Men will not set limits to their sin, but God sets limits to His patience. So His patience is never a reason to delay.
In those days were the giants on the earth, and also afterwards, when the sons of God had come in to the daughters of men, and they had borne [children] to them; these were the heroes, who of old were men of renown.
This verse sits in the darkest part of the story before the flood. It names giants on the earth, a strange union, and heroes whose fame outlived them. Two questions follow. Who were the Nephilim, and who were the sons of God?
Many Bibles leave the Hebrew word "Nephilim" untranslated. One reference work weighs its meaning and separates these beings from the children born of the union:
Nephilim. The meaning of this word is uncertain: some trace it to a root meaning 'to fall,' but it is not clear whether it means 'fallen ones' or 'those who fall upon.' They were men of great stature, which made the Israelites think of themselves as grasshoppers by comparison. Some have supposed they were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, but Scripture does not say so. It describes those born of that union as "mighty men (gibborim) which were of old, men of renown." Scripture says only that the Nephilim were "in the earth in those days," and they were also seen by the spies about a thousand years later: this is all that is revealed about them.
The verse names two groups: the giants already there, and the heroes born of the union. One writer sets out that reading and what made the second group famous:
The wording of verse 4 is not easy. It appears to distinguish between the Nephilim or giants in those days, as afterwards also, and the Gibborim, mighty ones or heroes, who were the fruit of the union of the sons of God with men's daughters... These, being of quite a different source and character, had a fame all their own for might. The reputation they gained of old was not founded on mere stature, like that of the Nephilim.
Commentators differ here, and have long done so:
There were 'sons of God' who took wives of 'the daughters of men.' Genesis 6:4. Some believe these were angels, permitted to take human form: compare Jude 6, 7. Others judge that the descendants of Seth are meant.
One writer argues for angels from the way Job uses the phrase, and answers the usual objection from the Lord's words about angels:
Who are the sons of God referred to here? Believing men are undoubtedly called "sons of God" in Romans 8, but it would be beside the point to bring that thought into Genesis 6. The expression is best explained by its use in the book of Job, written about the same time, and there it is beyond all doubt used of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38). Genesis 6 therefore tells us of the spirit world breaking its bounds and entering into unholy connection with the human family... It is beside the mark to quote Luke 20:34-36 as an objection to this. The Lord is there describing the proper state of angels, the state from which the offenders of Genesis 6 departed.
"Men of renown" is man's verdict. God's verdict was the opposite:
True, the fruit of that union seemed exceedingly fair in man's judgement, as we read, "the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown;" yet God's judgement was quite different. He does not see as man sees... So much for mixing the holy with the unholy. It will always be so. If the holy seed will not keep its purity, all must be forfeited as far as testimony on the earth is concerned. Satan's first effort was to frustrate God's purpose by putting the holy seed to death, and when that failed he sought to gain his end by corrupting it.
The fame of these men outlived them and turned into story:
The monstrous men produced were monsters of iniquity, filling the earth with violence and corruption. Yet man in his fallen condition is such that these monsters, instead of being counted men of infamy, were treated as men of renown. They were doubtless the originals from whom sprang those tales of "gods" and "goddesses" and "Titans," and so on, which have come down to us in the writings of antiquity.
The verse also answers a common argument: that mixing with what is corrupt will lift it.
The most common excuse for a Christian mixing with the world is this: by doing so he will help to raise and purify the people he joins himself to. We need go no further into the Bible than Genesis 6 to see how false that argument is... The sons of God did not elevate the daughters of men, and their offspring took after the baser strain.
- Boundary. Something crossed a line: on one reading, the spirit world broke its bounds and entered into connection with the human family.
- Two classes. The Nephilim were already "in the earth"; the Gibborim, the mighty men, were the fruit of the union. The text keeps them apart, and only the second group carries renown. The giants show up again a thousand years later, when the spies see them.
- Disputed identity. Commentators differ on the sons of God — angels allowed to take human form, or the descendants of Seth.
- Reversed verdict. Men crowned these heroes as great; God judged the union and its fruit quite differently.
- Result. The mixture filled the earth with violence and corruption, and left behind the old tales of gods and Titans. Mixing never lifts the lower; it drags down the higher.