Hello, welcome to Bible Wisdom Today for those willing to think deeply. My name is Stan Watkins.

God is a God of judgement. God is a God of grace. Can he be both?

In our last episode, we considered Genesis chapter 5, where we saw the multiplication of life under God’s blessing. When we turn to Genesis 6, we see the abuse of this same good gift. His blessing of sexuality is twisted, misused, and ultimately corrupted. Genesis 6 is not just a strange story of mysterious beings, boundary-crossing marriage, and ancient giants, although it is all those things. It is not merely a story about what happened “way back then.” Rather, it confronts us with enduring questions that thoughtful people cannot avoid. What does rebellion actually look like, and why are humans like me so prone to it? How does moral collapse spread through a culture and how can I avoid compromise with immoral influences around me?

In this episode we will slow down and examine one of the most debated and difficult passages in all of Scripture. We will not rush to easy answers, but carefully trace the logic of the text, weigh the major interpretations, and seek to understand what the author of Genesis intended his original audience to see. 

Because if we miss the historical situation of Genesis 6, we will misunderstand the flood. And if we misunderstand the flood, we will miss one of the Bible’s clearest pictures of both the seriousness of sin and the surprising persistence of God’s grace.

Rebellion. Who are the sons of God?

Let’s begin by reading the first four verses of Genesis 6.

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
 Genesis 6:1-4

This story, which the author of Genesis recalls so briefly, has provoked over two millennia of intense, polarized commentary, making this one of the Bible’s most debated passages. Who are the  sons of God? Who are the daughters of humans? Who in the world are the Nephilim? We will make a comparison of the various views on this passage shortly, but first, lets look more carefully at what the text actually says in order to get our bearings.

The author offers a brief description of the historical situation, “when human beings began to increase in number on the earth,” before launching into his new narrative.” This simple expression is a recap of the genealogy of Genesis 5 which we discussed last time. In that genealogy, the emphasis was on the male line, but now he takes up the story of the daughters which were only casually mentioned before. Throughout our study of Genesis 6-9 we will find points of comparison between the Biblical story of the flood and other Mesopotamian literature. There is no point in asking which literature came first or who copied whom. The important point is that all this literature grew up in the same culture, with the same historical perspectives, cultural understandings and traditional stories. Just like Genesis, the Atrahasis Epic of Mesopotamia also mentions the multiplication of humanity shortly before the divine command to send a flood.

In verse 2 we read that “the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.” At least that is the way it appears in the New International Version. A more literal translation would read that they “saw that the daughters of humans were good, and they took.”[1] With this translation we can see the parallel with Eve’s mistake in the garden, she saw that it was good and she took. This helps us understand the nature of the sin. Eve crossed a boundary set by God. Here the sons of God, whoever they were, crossed a divine boundary with their marriage to the daughters of humans. Whatever this reaching across the boundary was, it was unnecessary. Mankind was already breeding very successfully.

God says, in verse 3, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever.” A better translation would be “My Spirit will not remain with humans forever.”[2] There are two possible interpretations of this statement. First, that God now placed a limit on mankind’s lifespan. Noah and many of his descendants lived longer than 120, but by the time of Moses, 120 years was considered the longest a man could live. This gradual implementation of a maximum life-span was similar to God’s slow-acting curse of death after the sin in the garden. An alternative meaning, which seems more likely to me, is that 120 years was the period that God delayed before the flood. These were additional days of grace.

In verse 4 we are introduced to additional characters in the story, the Nephilim. According to Michael Heiser, this word appears to be a loan word from Aramaic, meaning “giants.” [3][4]This is how the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint, understands it as well. They are also described as “heroes of old, men of renown.” The only other reference to Nephilim in the Bible is Numbers 13:33, where the Israelites sent to spy out the land of Canaan report seeing the Nephilim there, who made them feel like grasshoppers. Nephilim were the children born to these boundary-crossing unions. The expression the sons of God went to the daughters of humans” should be “went into” the daughters of humans, a rather obvious Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse. They were on the earth “in those days,” that is, the pre-flood period, “and also afterwards.” Perhaps the author is so specific on this point in order to prepare his readers for their later appearance in the land of promise.

Most of the questions raised by this passage can be satisfied by answering one primary question, “Who were the sons of God?” This will help us understand the character of the sin involved, the identity of the daughters of humans and the nature of the Nephilim. Historically, there have been three answers to the question, “Who were the sons of God?”

·         First, that they were fallen angels

·         Second, that they were tyrannical human rulers

·         Third, that they were the godly line of Seth

Let’s consider first the view that the sons of God were fallen angels.

They were fallen angels

This view teaches that at an unknown time in the past, some angels, created by God to be ministering spirits, rebelled against God’s authority. At least some of them came to earth and intermarried with human women, crossing a boundary established by God. The result of their union was the half-human half-divine Nephilim, who were ancient giants. 

This view is both the oldest and the most modern. The earliest Jewish interpretations as well as the earliest Christian writers simply assumed it to be true. Recently many commentators, both Jewish and Christian, have returned to this interpretation. 

Supporters of this viewpoint point out that the scripture sometimes refers to angels as sons of God in other passages. For example, Job chapter 1 tells of a gathering of the heavenly court, which includes one who is called “the adversary.” Later in Job 38, God asks Job, as translated in the New King James Version, “Where were you…when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:4-7, NKJV)? This picture of God presiding over a heavenly council is similar to the Canaanite description of a heavenly pantheon, whose members often enjoyed sexual relations. The author of Genesis seems to believe that these sons of God might have done the same.

The strongest point against this view is that Jesus said in Matthew 22 that angels in heaven do not marry. “Yes,” supporters of this view might answer, “but what about angels who are not in heaven? Perhaps they could marry.” Others might object to this understanding of sons of God by asking, “if it was angels who sinned, why was mankind judged?” Again, supporters could answer that in the context of arranged marriages, the human father must have given his consent. That makes humans just as culpable, repeating the basic sin of the garden by reaching out to become more god-like by marrying angels. God responds to this overreach by limiting their lifespan. 

Early Jewish interpreters had no problem believing in embodied angels. In fact, they often appear in physical form throughout the Old Testament. They also were not bothered by the seemingly mythological nature of an angel/human marriage union, but later interpreters were. Both of the next two interpretations arose during the second century AD because of discomfort with the idea of spirit and human intercourse.

They were tyrants

Jewish commentators formulated a new position that the sons of God were kings or other rulers who abused their power by pressing women into harems against their will. They found biblical support for this position by the fact that the kings in the line of David were called God’s son. In 2 Samuel chapter 7, when God first made a promise that he would establish David’s throne forever, He said, “I will be his father, and he will be my son.” This statement is quoted in Psalm 2, an enthronement psalm which was likely repeated at many royal ascensions during the nation’s kingdom period and applied to various new kings in David’s dynasty.

Support for this position is also found outside the Bible in other ancient literature which referred to kings as sons of a God. In fact, that was a common royal title throughout the ancient near east, Egypt, and the Roman empire, indicating that the ruler had a unique relationship with the divine and was acting as his representative. It did not always imply literal divinity, but denoted divine endorsement and authority.

Supporters of this view also suggest that only an identification of “sons of God” with mankind explains why humanity is judged by the flood. As we saw before, supporters of the fallen angels theory would counter that in a culture of arranged marriages, the human fathers were also at fault for giving their consent.

The tyrant view of the sons of God struggles to explain the Nephilim. Wouldn’t the union of polygamous kings and oppressed women still produce normal human children? Another difficulty is that the severity of God’s flood judgment suggests some extreme disruption in the created order much greater than polygamy, which the Bible never directly condemns.

They were of the godly line of Seth

A third viewpoint regarding the sons of God arose among Christian interpreters in the second century, roughly at the same time as the Tyrant view. This alternative teaches that the sons of God were descendants in the godly line of Seth, while the “daughters of humans” referred to descendants of Cain. This view was championed by Augustine in the fourth century and became the standard Christian explanation throughout church history but it has far fewer advocates today. The sin involved was the intermarriage of the godly and ungodly lines. This view does not view the Nephilim as divine-human hybrids, but as wicked offspring resulting from these intermarriages. Proponents understand the name Nephilim to mean fallen ones, in the sense that they fall upon others with violence and oppression. They became heroes, men of renown spreading greater depravity in the world.

Support for this view is found in the fact that the Sethites are presented as the chosen line, so they might reasonably be called the “sons of God.” It also fits well contextually, in that the genealogy of Seth comes just before this story, and it avoids the theological difficulties of angelic-human procreation.

Despite this apparent support, there are also significant problems with this view. Why would the term “daughters of humans” apply only to the offspring of Cain. It sounds like a broad reference to all humanity. Furthermore, the problem was the intermarriage between the Sethite sons of God and the Cainite daughters of humans. Wouldn’t it be just as much a problem if a daughter of Seth married a son of Cain? The primary objection, however, is that this view does not provide a good explanation of the Nephilim. The story implies that the Nephilim were the result of this forbidden marriage union, mighty men of renown. Wouldn’t the union of two lines of humans produce normal human children?

All three of these interpretations have reasons to recommend them as well as reasons to question them. Faithful, God-following people have believed all three for thousands of years and still do today. You can believe any of these interpretations and still stand within the bounds of orthodoxy. For me, I find myself drawn back to the fallen angels viewpoint. I appreciate that it is the oldest interpretation, so perhaps closer to the original intent of the human author. It is the only interpretation that keeps the contrast between divinity and humanity and also provides a reasonable explanation of the Nephilim.

The consensus among scholars who hold the fallen angels view is that this intermarriage with humans did not continue beyond the flood. In the New Testament, Jude, the brother of Jesus, includes a reference to the first century Jewish commentary which popularized the fallen angels view. Jude says,

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
 Jude 1:6

The apostle Peter also includes a similar reference in his second letter. This implies that this rebellion was unique and temporary, while angels in heaven cannot marry, as Jesus said, these angels defied their nature to corrupt the human race. God responded with severe punishment, binding them in darkness until the final judgment. The fact that these two early church leaders both quote the same source referencing the fallen angels view adds additional support to this viewpoint.

There is one final issue that we must address before moving on in this chapter. The author of Genesis is quite specific that there were Nephilim before the flood and after. This is confirmed by the Israelite spies who found Nephilim in the land of Canaan. How could this be, if everyone except the family of Noah were destroyed in the flood? Interpreters have suggested a variety of ideas, including that one or more of the wives married to Noah’s sons were themselves descendants of Nephilim and thus carried that DNA with them into the ark, or even that one of those daughters-in-law was pregnant as she entered the ark with the love child of a union with a fallen angel. The easiest solution, however, is the most obvious. The spies referred to the natural giants in Canaan as Nephilim because they perceived them as dangerous, and using this historic reference gave their lying report greater weight.

Aside from the detailed work we have done to identify the sons of God, daughters of humans, and the Nephilim, how did the author of Genesis intend his reader to understand this story? The author of Genesis frequently argues against the prevailing pagan culture by his choice of terminology and stories. We have already seen how he refers to the sun as the “greater light” and the moon as the “lesser light” instead of using their ordinary names, since their names might imply that they were heavenly gods. In this case, he may be interacting again with Mesopotamian literature which included references to half-gods known as the Apkallu. They were wise and taught mankind skills of civilization. They also mated with human women before the flood and produced divine-human hybrids who became King-heroes of Mesopotamia. Genesis rebuts these ideas. The Apkallu were not heroes but fallen angels who crossed the boundary set by God and rebelliously mated with human women. The aptitudes they taught corrupted mankind and brought the flood.

It is helpful to see why the author included this story for his original readers, but what does this narrative mean for us, today. Honestly, I have struggled with applying this to life today. Let me suggest some questions for you to think about to find the application for your own life. The individuals in this story tried to reach beyond the boundaries God had set for them in order to improve their lives. How do we fall for that same temptation today? How do we try to become the god of our own life? 

The Nephilim, however we understand them, were heroes to the ancient people, men of renown. The author of Genesis does not seem to think that they chose their heroes well. Children on the playground learn early to surround themselves with people who are strong. The weak look for someone to defend them and those who are socially disadvantaged look for someone who is cool to introduce them to a better circle of friends. We continue this same pattern as adults, hiring people who can bring strength to our company, intentionally befriending a coworker who is the rising star, or voting for the candidate who promises to improve our own life the most. What if, instead of seeking out the strong, we looked for people who were good. What changes would we see if we prioritized character in our hiring practices, surrounded ourselves with friends who were kind, and voted for leaders with moral character? How could we make that change? How could the Holy Spirit, who indwells all followers of Jesus, help us to become better discerners of character?

Judgement … and Grace

After his brief recollection of these improper marriages, the author of Gensis continues by describing God’s reaction to the world’s corruption. 

The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
 Genesis 6:5-8

This description of the wickedness of mankind provides a link to the next section of the book, the account of Noah, where God will bring judgment on mankind for his wickedness. We saw this same sort of link at the beginning of the written account of Adam at the beginning of chapter 5. 

We also observe an important characteristic of this narrative. The author makes extensive use of the metaphor of hyperbole. Notice the extreme exaggeration in this statement, “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.” Was their not ever an occasional good thought or an infrequent kind word?  The author is content to write his report in stark black and white terms, with no nuance. When we recognize this exaggeration for what it is, it will set us up to better understand the following story of the great flood.

The author arranges his description of God’s response in a chiastic structure. In this case, he begins with two statements, makes his central main point, then returns to his first two statements in reverse order, producing the form A-B-C-B-A. If you can imagine each of the points A, B, and C being slightly indented, then imagine the second occurrence of B is outdented to match the B above and the second occurrence of A is treated similarly, then the left hand margin will be shaped like the left half of the letter X. This gives the form its name, since chi is the name of the “X” in the Greek alphabet. Obviously neither Moses nor any other ancient Hebrew was familiar with the Greek alphabet or the term “chiastic structure,” but this is a common ancient literary device. This may seem repetitive to us, but this repetition was designed with a purpose. In a culture where almost no one could read, this structured repetition allowed the message to be remembered and retold. I have taken the time to explain this literary structure here in order to set us up for the story of Noah and the flood. That flood story is a huge chiastic structure, which encompasses all of chapters 7 and 8, and parts of chapters 6 and 9 as well.

Let me give you the basic points of the chiastic structure here:

A1 The LORD saw mankind

B1 The Lord regretted that he had made them

C. The LORD said, “I will wipe them off the earth”

B2 The LORD regretted that he had made them

A2 The LORD saw Noah[5]

When we read “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become” we recall that wonderful refrain from Genesis 1, “God saw that it was good,” but we are now confronted with the strongest possible contrast. The repeated regret of the LORD draws attention to God’s heart of pain. The human heart was filled with evil; God’s heart was filled with pain. Every parent can probably understand that pain, as you watch your dear children suffer—suffer the consequences of their own bad choices.

The central point of this description is God’s announcement, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created.” God had created them; therefore, he had the right to destroy them. The animal kingdom also shared in humanity’s judgment. It is under the dominion of mankind, and one of its members, the serpent, was the means of introducing sin into the world. 

We not only see God’s heart of grief, but also God’s heart of grace.

“But Noah found favor [or grace] in the eyes of the LORD.”

“But…” After the bleak description of evil in the human heart, this is the most important conjunction in the Bible. Noah did not earn God’s favor. He found it. This is the first mention in the Bible of the important theme of grace. God accepts us on the same basis…

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith
 Eph. 2:8

The fact that Noah found favor does not mean that the flood will not come. It does not mean that Noah’s life will be easy or painless, but it does mean that humanity will continue. This is not the end of human civilization.

God warned mankind, sending his message through Noah. As the apostle Peter says in his second letter, 

[God] did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others (2 Pet. 2:5).

Noah’s neighbors ignored the reality of judgement. Jesus also recalled the days of Noah when he said,

For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;  and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. 
 Matt. 24:37-39

Other ancient literature of Mesopotamia tells of a great flood, which the gods sent because they had become fed up with all the noise from mankind. The author of Genesis lays the blame squarely on mankind’s character. “Every inclination…of the human heart was only evil all the time.”

Preparation for the flood

The writer of Genesis now introduces the next main section of Genesis with these words:

This is the account of Noah and his family.
 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.
 Genesis 6:9-10

This provides the link back to the description of Noah at the end of the previous section. Our writer first describes Noah as “righteous,” which is the common Hebrew word for a good person. The second description, “blameless” is rarely applied to people. It is more frequently used to describe a blemish-free sacrifice. Psalm 15 says that only the blameless may dwell on God’s holy hill. This is the prerequisite for close fellowship with God. Both Abraham and Job were also described as blameless. With the last description, “he walked faithfully with God, the author places Noah on the same level as Enoch. This concludes his progressive buildup of Noah’s character: He was a good man (like many), a blameless man (achieved by a few), and he walked with God, like Enoch, the only man who was translated to heaven without death.

In the previous paragraph, we read about God’s grace to Noah; now we read about his righteousness. Often people feel like they would like to know God, and they first try to clean up their life and live right, but that approach is backwards. Grace comes first; then God will help you live righteously. 

Because wickedness was pervasive everywhere God looked, he resolved to destroy the order which he had created at the beginning of the Genesis story and return things to a chaotic state. Let me read that part of the story.

Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 
 
 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 
 
 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 
 
 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark —you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 
 
 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.” 
 
 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
 Genesis 6:11-22

When he completed his creation, God had been so pleased, but now he was shocked at the extent of its corruption. In response, God announces to Noah that he intends to bring judgment. In our English translation we read, “The earth was corrupt,” and shortly after God says, “I am going to put an end to all people.” A more literal translation would say first, “the earth was ruined,” and follow that with God’s resolve, “I am about to ruin them.” The repeated terms are the author’s way of saying that the punishment fits the crime.

God commands Noah to build an ark out of cypress wood. The only other use of the word “ark” in scripture is in Exodus 2, describing the basket where Moses was placed and set afloat on the Nile. It is an Egyptian loan word, simply meaning chest or box. [6] The more traditional translation of cypress wood is “gopher” wood, but it is a term that is only used here, so its meaning is uncertain. God instructs Noah to make rooms, or literally “nests” in the ark.

God gives Noah specific instructions on how to build this vessel. He uses the standard construction formula of length times width times height, measured in cubits, which was the Hebrew measurement representing the length from fingertip to elbow, or about 18 inches. Translating these measurements into modern equivalents would give us 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high. Since the ark was to have three decks, this was large enough to hold the contents of 500 livestock railroad cars.

A great deal has been written about the size of the ark, either that it was certainly large enough to hold sufficient representative animals to restock the entire earth, or that it was undoubtedly too small for such a task. The original reader, however, would have reacted much differently. They would have seen immediately that this was an absurd exaggeration of anything that mankind could possibly build. They would have understood the hyperbole. In fact, building a wooden ship of that size was not possible until a six-masted schooner, the Wyoming, was built in Maine in 1909. Even then they had to use iron reinforcement. The large measurements of the ark may have reflected symbolic or theological meaning, similar to the long lives recorded in the previous chapter. They continue the pattern of hyperbole which we will see throughout the flood narrative.

God tells Noah that he is going to bring the floodwaters. The Mesopotamian flood story tells of gods who initiated a great flood but then became scared because it got out of control. The Biblical author contrasts that with God who is in continual control of the flood. God will destroy all creatures that have the life-breath of God in them.

The Gilgamesh epic goes into great detail about all the heroic efforts required to build the ark. In sharp contrast, Genesis says simply, “And Noah did all that the Lord commanded him” (v. 22). This is the entire description of a task which took 100 years.

God’s judgment will not be total, however. He will establish a covenant with Noah and his family. This is the first time this second important biblical term, covenant, is used and God will explain it to Noah in more detail after the floodwaters subside. The main content of this covenant was that God had chosen to deliver of Noah, his family, and selected animals, and he would continue to remember this promise forever.

In Hebrews 11, the English Standard Version reads,

By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he … became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
 Hebrews 11:7 (ESV)

Noah believed God and entered into the ark God commanded him to build; similarly, we believe God and enter into relationship with Jesus Christ, our ark of salvation. This is our covenant of grace.

Closing Comments

Well, we have taken quite a deep dive into one of the most debated stories in the Bible. We discovered that, no matter how you answer the question, “Why were the sons of God,” the basic meaning is still the same. They represented rebellion, wickedness, and humanity’s unsatisfiable desire to reach beyond the boundaries that God has set. We then met one man, Noah, who stood in brilliant contrast against the darkness of the times. So much so that God chose him and his family to be the new beginning for human life on earth. In our next episode we will continue his story.

If you have enjoyed this episode, I would ask for your help. One of the most successful ways of spreading the news about this podcast is for you to recommend it to your friends. Do you know someone who would appreciate this episode? Why not send them a simple link to this episode along with why you think they should listen? That would be so helpful. Thank you for helping to grow this Bible Wisdom Today family.

[1] Wenham, G. J. (1987). Genesis 1-15. Zondervan.
[2] Wenham
[3] Akin, J. (2025a, October 27). Are the nephilim biblical aliens?. Catholic Answers. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-the-nephilim-biblical-aliens
[5]  Wenham
[6] Wenham