Genesis 6: 2 Commentary

Fred, if I understand you correctly you are posing the possibility that, upon their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lost their power to produce “sons of God” and started giving birth to normal people. And that Genesis 6:2 refers to Adam and Eve’s male “giant” children taking their “human” sisters as wives.

First of all it doesn’t appear that any of Adam and Eve’s children were born in the Garden. The first couple are banished from Eden in Gen. 3:22 and the first time we are told that Adam knew his wife is in Gen. 4:1 when Eve conceives Cain. So that throws out the idea that the sons of God could have been children born in the Garden of Eden.

Besides the sons of God and the Nephilim appear in the time of Noah, ten generations and more than a thousand years after the banishment. So there is no connection whatsoever.

The first four lines of Chapter 6 must have meant something to the people of the time, but not to us. I think we can all agree that this is one part of the Bible that nobody can understand and just leave it at that.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/2/2010 03:04 am

Re post 21 - Yes for the children born in the Garden

By Fred McCraw (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/2/2010 01:21 am

Re post 20 by Fred. Fred, are you posing the possibility that the children of Adam and Eve were all males?

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/2/2010 19:59 pm

Verse 1 reads; “and daughters were born to them”

Chap. 1 verse 28 reads; “Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it.

What if Adam and Eve had children in the Garden of Eden as above instructions would indicate and because of God’s preference these were males? Would it not stand to reason the “sins of the Father” would get these boys kicked out of the Garden with Mom and Dad? They being part of the perfect man and woman created in the Garden could very easily be giants.
Is it possible that these being born to God’s creation would be considered Sons of God?

Something to think about!

By Fred McCraw (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/2/2010 16:36 pm

Thanks Charles, I see what you’re saying now.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/12/2010 18:22 pm

Jason, Lev 12:4 says that, after being unclean for 7 days (in the case of a male), “Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed”. I added these 33 days to the 7 to get 40. In the case of a female Lev 12:5 says “she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days”. Again I added 2 weeks to 66 days to get 80. So you are correct. I lumped the two periods together as both “unclean”, but the Bible has different terms for them.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/8/2010 01:49 am

Charles,

You’re right that the number of day’s unclean is double for a female child, but its not 80 days, its 14 versus 7 days for a male child. (Lev 12:2,5)

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/8/2010 01:25 am

Genesis 6:2 is one of countless sexist verses in the Bible. Here we have sons of God, but no daughters of God. The daughters are men’s; they are inferior to the sons. The idea that men choose their wives at will with the women having little or no say in whom they marry is perpetrated in Exodus, Deuteronomy and many other Bible books. In Leviticus male priests impose strict rules upon mestruating women and declare that when a child is born the mother is unclean for a number days: forty days in the case of a male child and eighty days if the child is female! In Numbers 3:15 God orders a census to count all males that are one month or older while making no mention of females. And so the sexism goes to the point when even Jesus, who tried so hard to right the wrongs of the OlD Testament, even he is obliged to choose only males for apostles. Or so the Holy Bible says!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/6/2010 14:17 pm

i would like to make the point that all the New Testament tenses I’ve seen for Sons of God use words like now or because of. which i would say are in referace to Christ death and reserection. In 1John 3:1, the Bible says, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God…” “Beloved,” we weren’t always ‘in the family,’ but thank God,[for Christs death and reserection] “…NOW are we THE SONS OF GOD…” [1John 3:2].

By Ryan Dittmann (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/23/2009 15:36 pm

Do you speak Hebrew?

By Jason (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/30/2009 01:18 am

evreywhere i search online or elsewhere is the seth/cain line as an excuse not to look at the WHOLE story here. within a very few phrases of this story. it says they were NEPHILIM—(fallen ones). they were not fully human. they were hybrid– half human, half fallen angel. also, if there was an environmental thing going on, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE would have been larger, so there wouldnt be any giants if they were all larger. everyone lived in the same atmosphere. “there were nephilim in the earth in those days”, deal with it

By JR (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/30/2009 00:50 am

Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. Angels are called the sons of God in the book of Job. Those who received the word of God are called the son of God,as was observed by the Lord Jesus.Those who are born again are called the sons of God. Jesus is also called the Son of God.

What could be the possible meaning of the sons of God in Genesis 6:2? In this verse we have the reference to the daughters of men as well. A similar phrase is found in Genesis 11:5. The children of men or the sons of men so to say. If we look at verses 8-10, we have the refernece of Nimrod who was the builder of Babel( Babylon). It is likely therefore that the tower of babel was built under his leadership. Nimrod is the son of Cush, in the line of the cursed lineage of Ham, and is decribed as the great hunter before(agianst) God. It is likely therefore that the decendants of the ungodly lineage are called the sons of men, whereas those of the godly lineage ( of Seth) are called the sons of God. Thus the meaning may be that the sons of God (decendants of godly lineage) married daughters of men ( ungodly decendants). This is however one of the possible intepretations.

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/11/2009 16:22 pm

As for giants, Ken Hovin (or was it Kent?) had some interesting information about the pre-flood environment and the effects it may have had to life on earth. Very interesting things about air pressure causing snakes to stop producing venom, making plants grow larger, all backed up by studies done in hyperbaric (spelling?) chambers using filtered sunlight. Google it. It is interesting. (And yes I know about Hovin’s tax problems)

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/10/2009 04:57 am

May I request Vagasam to elaborate and substantiate with scripure references his commentary?

By Jayant Christian (wrote 287 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/9/2009 15:58 pm

Sons of God were different from ANGELS . God created Angels and Sons of God differently ie two types of creation in the existence of universe before the creation of Adam&Eve.

By vasagam (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/9/2009 09:47 am

Reply to Post #7: The term nephilim is found in the NASB. KJV uses giant. The Hebrew transliteration is nephiyl. The word is found in Gen 6:4 as well as Numb 13:33. There is debate regarding why some people were giants. Refer to Post #5. It is uncertain if the giants of Numbers were somehow descended from the giants of Genesis. I assume the Genesis giants were wiped out by the flood unless one survived in Noah’s family (or maybe he carried recessive gene/DNA). Also, Golaith was big but I can’t find any reference to him being nephilim.

By Terik Q (wrote 65 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/6/2009 16:05 pm

At the church I attend the bible they provide refers to the sons of god as the nephilim. Anyone else ever heard of the nephilim?

By adam (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/6/2009 14:44 pm

Personally, I believe the sons of God are a ref. to saved folks: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1Jo 3:2

I’ve always believed the simplest answer is the best, when it comes to understanding scripture.

By Jason W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/17/2009 21:38 pm

City of Angels:
Gen 6:1-7
There are some good websites that allow searching Bible keywords and topics. I switch between biblegateway.com and blueletterbible.com, but crosswalk.com is also good. Using the exact phrase “sons of God” and searching the King James Version returns 11 results. Gen 6:2 & 6:4; Job 1:6, 2:1, & 38:7; John 1:12; Romans 8:14 & 8:19; Philippians 2:15; and 1 John 3:1 & 3:2. Using the NASB gives slightly different results. Commentaries are also available depending upon website, verse, and translation. A few theories exist regarding these sons of God:

Theory 1 – The sons of God are angels who became demons and took daughters of men as mates. Points: The verses in Job support that angels are called the sons of God and are the only other Old Testament Hebrew reference. A reference in Jude may also support this. Provides a reason for the flood – God had to wipe out the abominations. Counterpoints: Angels in Heaven do not marry nor are given in marriage. Angels are spiritual and cannot produce offspring. Points: The demons would ignore marriage covenants and want to encourage people to sin. Demons could enter into willing heathens in order to procreate. Counterpoint: How would possession of an otherwise normal human result in a mighty race?

Theory 2 – The sons of God are the righteous line of Seth while the daughters of men are the ungodly line of Cain. Points: New Testament Scripture supports that righteous men can be called the sons of God. Provides a reason for the flood – the righteous became unequally yoked with the ungodly. Provides a reason why Abraham wanted himself and son to marry close relatives – he wanted to avoid repeating history. And we read examples of ungodly wives having bad influence on husbands. Counterpoint: Seth and Cain were not the only offspring of Adam and Eve, so there would have been other people that were not descended from either the righteous or ungodly lines. The fact that we read about the issue again shows that the flood didn’t solve the problem. Point: If the righteous did have other people that they could marry, when they choose to marry the ungodly instead shows how corrupt they were becoming. Counterpoint: How would people who were unequally yoked result in a mighty race?

Theory 3 – The sons of God were kings and princes who were just called that. Points: The kings were full of pride much like Pharaoh and other rulers would be later. Provides a reason for the flood – people were becoming arrogant and putting themselves on par with God. Counterpoint: This is similar to Theory 2, but in reverse. Instead of the sons being righteous they are actually ungodly. The fact that we read about the issue again shows that the flood didn’t solve the problem. How would people being sinful result in a mighty race?

Personally, I prefer the first theory. If demons can produce offspring with humans, then that would provide a compelling reason for the massive cleansing that the flood provided. However I can only offer more questions than answers. Two more questions: Why don’t we read about the daughters of God joining with the sons of men? Were the mighty men all wiped out by the flood, or did some survive within Noah’s family?

By Terik Q (wrote 65 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/17/2009 13:50 pm

I always thought that Angels do not have the capability to reproduce, and I can’t understand why an Angel would want to sink so low as to mate with humans. Fallen Angels could be a possibility do to the fact that they like to stir things up, but even that seems ridiculous in some ways because they are practically on another dimension. We can’t see them. So maybe when the Bible was written and these entities came, the prophet didn’t know how to describe them so they were titled ’sons of God’ showing that they were superior to us. Could they have come down from somewhere else in the galaxy perhaps? Jesus could have flocks that we know not of.

By Martinique (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/27/2009 04:47 am

Don has stated his belief that the title: “The sons of God” always refers to angels. In his comment, he said, “Only the angels have the t-i-t-l-e of Sons of God.” However, a good dictionary and concordance would help correct this mistaken assertion.

Was the Apostle Paul writing to angels in Philippians 2:15? “That ye may be blameless and harmless, THE SONS OF GOD, without rebuke…”

Don said the phrase ‘The sons of God’, “…only occurs in Genesis and Job.” But again, the Bible says in John 1:12 “…as many as received him, to them gave he power to become THE SONS OF GOD, even to them that believe on his name:”

In 1John 3:1, the Bible says, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called (or that our title should be) the sons of God…” “Beloved,” we weren’t always ‘in the family,’ but thank God, “…NOW are we THE SONS OF GOD…” [1John 3:2].

I wish I could underline the word “The.” Because it doesn’t say we are “AS” sons of God or “LIKE” sons of God, but we are “THE” sons of God.

I’m not saying that ‘the sons of God’ are always humans, I’m just telling you the Bible says “…as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are THE SONS OF GOD.” (Rom 8:14)

[Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “title” as (among other things) “An appellation of dignity, distinction or pre-eminence given to persons; as duke, marquis and the like.”]

By J. W. Elder (wrote 314 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/5/2008 03:03 am

If these “Sons of God” were angels, then the giants that they produced were half angels and half human. Presumably some us of Middle Eastern descent may still be carrying angel genes!

The intermingling of humans with godly creatures is a common theme in multi-deity religions but I find it incongruent in a monotheistic faith.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/9/2007 16:08 pm

When you start at Genesis in the Bible you read about the Sons of God marrying the daughters of men and producing famous giants who did great and notable deeds in the eyes of man. So you wonder who are these Sons of God. Not until you get to the Book of Job do you find out who they are. They were angels. The sons of God saw the beauty of the daughters of the sons of men and took wives.
ON a certain day, the sons of God presented themselves before the throne of God and Satan was there. Only the angels have the t-i-t-l-e of Sons of God. The sons of God went to the store. The sons of God went before God. The sons of God married the daughters of men. This title only occurs in Genesis and Job. Some men make a leap of an assumption and say the Sons of God are the descendants in the messianic line marrying the daughters of the bad guys. Others say that angels can’t marry. Sure, spirits cannot marry, but in human form they can eat and sleep and marry. That is what they did. Jude 6 and 7 puts these fallen angels into the same context as the Sodomites. I think it is so obvious that the argument over this issue is quite amazing. Even a child can see it. Maybe that is the problem.

By Don (wrote 6 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/29/2007 16:08 pm