Introduction
The following is an exegetical essay on Genesis 6:1-8 in which I hope to provide an exegetically rigorous, theologically sensitive, contextual interpretation of one of the most debated passages in Scripture. The essay is divided into seven sections:
- Establish the Text
- Genre and Context
- Structure
- Exegesis
- Themes and Main Point
- Biblical Theology
- Application
Establish the Text
In 6:2 multiple Old Greek manuscripts read οἱ ἄγγελλοι τοῦ θεοῦ, “the angels/messengers of God.” Symmachus, Targum Oneqelos, Targum Pseudo Jonathan, and one manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch Targum all read οἱ υἱοὶ τῶν δυναστευόντων, “the sons of the mighty ones.” Both these translations are theologically motivated (probably to avoid any hint of polytheism) and the Masoretic “sons of God” is the most likely original text.
In 4:4, Aquila, Symmachus, Targums Niofiti, Onqelos, and Pseudo-Jonathan all support the MT and begin the verse with asyndeton. However, the Samaritan Penteteuch, Old Greek, Vulgate, and Syriac all connect verse 4 to what precedes it with a conjunction, thereby linking the Nephilim closer with the actions of the sons of God. Neither reading drastically changes the meaning of the passage or determines which view one must take.
Genre and Context
The genre of Genesis 6:1-8 is historical narrative. There is no indication that Moses intended the reader to understand the passage as myth. The passage functions both as the conclusion to the toledoth begun in 5:1 and the introduction to the flood narrative. That it belongs with the toledoth of 5:1 is evident from the toledoth in 6:9 which begins the flood narrative proper.[1] This can also be seen in the continued theme of human propagation that has dominated 4:17-5:32. This has implications for identifying the sons of God because it sets the reader up for a focus on the line of Seth. Genesis 4:17-26 gives the account of Cain’s genealogy (4:17-22), then the evil that characterized his line (4:23-24), and finally ends with a seed of hope (4:25-26). Genesis 5:1-6:8 picks up on that hopeful seed and gives recounts the genealogy of Adam through Seth (5:1-32), then accounts for its corruption (6:1-7), and ends on a seed of hope (6:8).
This passage also functions as the introduction to the flood narrative, as God’s judgment in 6:7 makes clear. The corruption described in 6:1-5 is the reason for God’s regret and de-creation judgment on the world. This also has implications for identifying the “sons of God;” for any view that locates the sin in a non-human party cannot account for how the judgment fell on humanity.
Structure
Internally, the passage is structured around historical narrative and Yahweh’s speech. The passage can be divided into two sections based around Yahweh’s two pronouncements of judgment, 6:1-4 and 6:5-8. The first passage contains the sight of the sons of God and Yahweh’s judgment, the second contains Yahweh’s sight and judgment.
Each section is broken down into three scenes. The main features for distinguishing between scenes are change of subject and change of mode of narration. Each section has the structure of historical narrative-divine speech-background information. In this way, God’s speeches are the focus of the passage.
The first section is composed of only one phase and is concerned primarily with the sin of the “sons of God.” After Yahweh’s speech, it ends with background information on the Nephilim. Phase 2 returns to the mainline and deals with Yahweh’s sight of the sin and pronouncement of de-creation judgment. Phase 3 is composed entirely of background information and could be seen as really part of phase 2, but I have separated it out because of its distinct function. Without verse 8, the passage would be entirely one of sin and judgment, but verse 8 hints at a resolution through the man of God’s favor, Noah. Therefore, because it serves a distinct role in the development of the plot from verses 5-7, verse 8 is its own phase.
Exegesis
1. This verse begins with the macro-syntactical marker (וַֽיְהִי) followed by a temporal כי to introduce a protasis-apodosis construction, with the apodosis coming in verse 2.[2] Verse 1 is offline antecedent information before the mainline starts in verse 2. The language of multiplication ties the section closely to chapters 4-5 which are dominated by genealogy, as well as allude back to the command to multiply in 1:28.[3] האדם is generic, indicated by the third person suffix attached to the lamed preposition at the end of the verse.[4]
2. Verse 2 begins the mainline of the narrative and introduces the primary antagonists as well, the “sons of God.” The main interpretative discussion on Genesis 6:1-8 focuses on the identity of the “sons of God.” Three main views have been taken since Moses penned the passage: First, the sons of God are angelic beings who left heaven to marry human women. According to this view the sin is crossing the bounds between divine and human.[5] Second, the sons of God are from the godly line of Seth while the daughters of men are from the ungodly line of Cain. Third, the sons of God are tyrannical human princes from the line of Cain who take whatever women they want as their wives.
There are three main arguments in favor of the angelic view. First, the only other time בני־האלהים is used in the OT it refers to angels.[6] Second, the early extra-biblical Jewish literature (notably 1 Enoch 6, Jubilees 4-5, and some Old Greek manuscripts) and many early Christian writers (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian) interpret the sons of God as angelic beings.[7] Third, the NT interprets the sons of God as angels in 2 Peter and Jude.[8]
However, this view runs into a number of problems. First, the phrase sons of God is only used two times in the OT outside of Genesis 6, both in Job (1:6, 2:1, cf. Psalm 29:1, 89:7). There is therefore no firm lexical foundation for the angelic meaning. One has to look to the very distant context and import that usage into Genesis.[9] Second, although much of the extra-biblical Jewish literature does support the angelic view, there is support for the tyrannical rulers view in Symmachus, as well as the Targumim Onqelos and Neofiti. Third, the NT is not nearly as conclusive as the angelic proponents claim. Second Peter leaves the sin of the angels unspecified and is debatable whether the sin in Jude is of a sexual nature.[10] In fact, the NT moves in the other direction by indicating that angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30)[11] and the Bible nowhere else speaks of angelic beings being able to engage in sexual intercourse.[12] Fourth, the text does not state whether the Nephilim/Gibborim were the offspring of the union between the sons of God and the daughters of man. In fact, since it says they were on the earth “also afterwards” and Numbers 13:33 indicates that they were around after the flood, it is unlikely that Moses intends us to understand them as a product of the union. Fifth, and most important, the sin in view in Genesis 6:1-8 is the sin of mankind, and Yahweh’s judgments are pronounced against mankind.[13] Yahweh decided that His spirit will not remain in man (באדם) forever (6:3), He saw that the wickedness of man (האדם) was great (6:5), He regretted that He had made man (האדם, 6:6), and said that He will blot out man (האדם) from the face of the earth (6:7).It is inconsistent with God’s justice to argue that God judged humanity for the sin of angelic beings, and any attempt to make the “daughters of men” active in the sin reads into the text what is not there.[14]
Proponents of the Sethite view put forward three main arguments: first, the immediate context of Genesis 4-5 with the contrasting genealogies of Cain and Seth (each containing a Lamech and an Enoch), sets the reader up to expect a contrast in 6:1-8. Second, marriage within a particular family is a theme of Genesis (24:4, 27:46-28:9). Third, The Pentateuch elsewhere uses the language of sonship to refer to God’s covenant people.[15]
However, this view has its weaknesses as well. First, if the sin in view is intermarriage, it necessitates a shift from the generic use of האדם in verse 1 referring to all mankind to a specific use of האדם in verse 2 referring to the line of Cain. There is no indication for such a shift in the test and the fact that האדם are the fathers of the “daughters” in both cases clearly indicates that האדם refers to the same group in both verses.[16] Second, it is unclear why a religiously mixed marriage would produce offspring who are Nephilim/Gibborim.[17] Third, nowhere else in the Bible are the Sethites designated as “sons of God.”[18]
The third view, that the sons of God are kings/rulers has three main arguments in support of it. First, ancient near eastern culture viewed kings as semi-divine. Kline points to the Ugaritic king Krt who is called the “son of El,”[19] and Walton points to similarities between the Genesis 6:1-4 and the Epic of Gilgamesh where Gilgamesh is presented as a semi-divine despot who engages in sexual immorality by exercising the right of the first night.[20] Second, the Bible elsewhere identifies kings/judges as God’s son (Exodus 4:22, 2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 82:6).[21] Third, Genesis 4 shows the origins of the sons of God in the despotic line of Cain, who founded a city and named it after his son, and Lamech, who engaged in violence and polygamy.[22] Fourth, this view explains why the offspring of the women were Nephilim/Gibborim and not just normal men – for they were the sons of mighty rulers.[23]
Against this view we may make three objections. First, while individual kings are styled as a “son of God,” there is no ANE or OT background for groups of kings being styled as such, and when the language is used of an individual king it is almost never found in straightforward historical narrative.[24] Second, there is no evidence elsewhere in the context of Genesis for the descendants of Cain being labeled “sons of God.”[25] Third, it is by no means clear that the Nephilim/Gibborim were the offspring of the union between the sons of God and daughters of man, in fact, the phase “and also afterward” (6:4) suggests otherwise.[26]
In light of the numerous problems with the three main views, some scholars have proposed to combine the angelic and human tyrant views and view the sons of God as either a divine-human mixture like Gilgamesh,[27] or as demon possessed rulers.[28] These views are attractive yet speculative and ultimately find little basis in the text of Genesis 6:1-8.[29] The view that the sons of God were demon possessed rulers might be attractive but receives no support from the context of Genesis 1-11 and very little from the Pentateuch as a whole – demon possession is hardly to be found.
Therefore, we propose a modified version of the Sethite view which avoids its weaknesses and incorporates the insights from the tyrannical ruler view. We propose that the sons of God are the men from the line of Seth, however the sin is not intermarriage with the line of Cain but violent and lustful polygamy. This view avoids the most significant objection to the traditional Sethite view, namely, the necessity of האדם being used differently in verses 1 and 2. According to our view, האדם is generic in both verses since the sin is not intermarriage with another line and it is of little significance whether the “daughters” were from the line of Cain or Seth (or any other line since Adam and Eve had many other children, 4:4).
Contrary to some who argue that the nature of the sin is unspecified,[30] the key comes in the phrase מכל אשׁר בחרו. Whether the מן is partitive or explicative makes no difference, for the fact remains that they sons of God took whatever wives they choose. The structural similarities between Genesis 6:1-4 and the account of Lamech in Genesis 4:19-24,[31] rather than identify the sons of God as Cainites, show how the line of Seth has become like the line of Cain. The line of Seth has in them the same violence and polygamy which characterized the ungodly line of Cain.[32]
We agree with those who point out that the language of “taking a wife” is the common language for marriage, and therefore the text is not describing promiscuity or adultery.[33] However, that does not rule out forced polygamy where the sons of God took whatever women they wished as their wives. There is a similarity between the actions of the sons of God and Pharaoh in Genesis 12:10-20, who takes Sarah into his harem with no apparent regard for her consent.[34] That the sin resides in the sons of God and not the “daughters of men” is supported by the clear allusion to Genesis 3:6 in the words, “saw (ראה)…good (טוב)…took (לקח).” Like Eve, the sons of God give no regard to the divine word, but in their case they disregard the ordinance of monogamous marriage (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6) and rather took whatever seemed good to them.[35] Just as the fruit of the tree is passive in the sin of Eve, so the “daughters of man” are portrayed as passive agents in 6:1-4. This view of the sin makes it plausible that the sons of God were not only Sethites but powerful men as well, even rulers, for they had the power to take whatever women they chose. In this way, we combine the view that the sons of God are Sethites and tyrannical rulers, though the phrase itself only denotes the former.
3. In this verse, Moses relates the first of the divine pronouncements of judgment. Wenham notes that almost every word in this verse is the subject of controversy.[36] “My spirit” (רוחי) denotes the life-giving power of God which God breathed into man in Genesis 2:7.
The verb ירון is a hapax legomenon in the OT. The LXX translates it with καταμενω, “remain,” but others have suggested the gloss “to become strong” or “to protect” from various Akkadian roots, or “to be humiliated” from an Arabic root.[37] The context of Genesis 6:3 favors the meaning “remain” or “abide,” but the other meanings could fit as well. Regardless of which gloss one gives, the point of the verse remains the same: God will withdraw His Spirit from man.
The word בשׂגם is also a hapax legomenon and is highly debated. It appears to be a combination of the preposition ב, the relative particle שׁ, and the adverb גם.[38] The LXX translates it causally with δια + articular infinitive; other evidence being tenuous it seems best to translate it causally, “because.”
There are two main views for interpreting the 120 years: it either refers to a time of grace before the flood or to a limit on the lifespan of human beings. Since there is no later mention of the expiration of the time of grace in the flood narrative, the latter interpretation is more likely.[39] The objection that Noah and the patriarchs lived longer than 120 years can be explained by the fact that the full scope of God’s judgments are not always meted out immediately, e.g. Adam and Eve did not physically die as soon as they ate from the tree, yet physical death was certainly part of God’s judgment on their sin.
4. Verse four begins a new scene indicated by the change in subject from God to Nephilim and the change in mode of narration from direct discourse to historical narrative. The whole of verse four is off the mainline narrative and gives background information. There are three main interpretations of the Nephilim: they were the sons of God,[40] they were the offspring of the marriage between the sons of God and daughters of man,[41] and they were a third group altogether.[42] Their identification is further complicated by their identification with or distinction from the “mighty men, who were of old, men of renown.” The text most naturally reads that the Nephilim were neither the sons of God nor their offspring and they are identified with the “mighty men, who were of old, men of renown.”
Three arguments support this reading. First, Moses says that the Nephilim were on the earth “in those days and also afterward” referring to the pre-flood and post-flood times respectively;[43] therefore the Nephilim cannot be identified with the sons of God or their offspring. Second, the LXX translates נפלים and גברים as γίγαντες, “giants,” indicating that the LXX translators identified the two groups. Third, the only other time the Nephilim appear in Scripture is Numbers 13:33 in the spies report concerning the promised land (though there is possible reference to them in Ezekiel 32:20-28[44]). There they are large, formidable warriors whom the spies feared and warned the assembly of Israel against. Since Moses’s original audience would have known who these Nephilim were (some by direct experience), he did not need to specify their identity further.[45]
This distinction between the Nephilim and the children of the marriages removes the necessity of finding something unique in the union between the Sons of God and daughters of men. Furthermore, this view allows us to do justice to the text which explicitly states that the Nephilim-Gibborim were human and not a human-angelic mixture. Moses makes this clear when he refers to them אנשׁי השׁם, “men of name.”[46] Why then mention the Nephilim if they are neither the sons of God nor their offspring? To place the context of the sin of the sons of God in a general time of wickedness.[47] The Nephilim show that the earth was indeed full of violence, as God says in Genesis 6:11-14.
5. This verse begins a new scene and a new phase. This phase is entirely concerned with Yahweh’s response to the sinfulness of mankind. Just as the mainline of Genesis 6 began with the sons of God seeing (ראה), so this phase begins with Yahweh seeing (ראה); but whereas the result of the sight of the sons of God was sin, the result of Yahweh’s sight is judgment on sin. Genesis 6:5 is a locus classicus for the doctrine of total depravity. When God saw the sinfulness of mankind, He saw that man’s sin is extensive (רב), total (כל), internal (יצר מחשׁבת לבו), exclusive (רק), and constant (כל־היום).[48] Mankind had become utterly godless and wicked.
6. Yahweh’s response to the wickedness of man is surprising because we read that He regretted (נחם) making man and that He was “bitterly indignant” (עצב).[49] We must not so emphasize this verse as to run roughshod over the other texts in the Bible which speak more clearly about God’s immutability and constancy (Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29). While the exact mechanics of what it means for God to regret are not parsed out for us and we must be content with the mystery that analogical language necessarily entails, we are able to say from this verse that Yahweh is profoundly against sin, it is no light matter to Him. Concerning the verb עצב, Wenham says it expresses “the most intense form of human emotion, a mixture of rage and bitter anguish;” he notes that it is used of Dinah’s brothers when they discovered she had been raped (Genesis 34:7).[50]
These two verbs, נחם and עצב, recall Lamech’s prophetic word in 5:29 that Noah (נח) would bring relief (נחם) from the pain (עצבון) that was a result of the Fall.[51] Lamech’s words in turned echoed the curse in Genesis 3:16-19. Therefore, in the very words used to describe God’s regret over making man we have a hint that a resolution to the problem will come through this man: Noah.
7. Apart from the citation formula, this verse is entirely composed of divine speech and contains Yahweh’s promise of de-creation judgment. Not only does Yahweh promise to “blot out” man, but also animals, creeping things, and birds. In an ironic way this verse affirms the kingly status which man has as Yahweh’s vice-gerent over creation. Yet he has abused his exalted position and therefore judgment falls not only upon him but upon the whole realm over which he was supposed to steward.
8. This verse begins the last phase of the plot and is set offline by the fronting of the subject before the verb. Moses did this to emphasize Noah and his special place. The waw which begins the verse is disjunctive and sets Noah apart from the rest of mankind which is under God’s just judgment. When the rest of the line of Seth sinned and fell under Yahweh’s judgment, Noah found favor in Yahweh’s eyes. Noah is important to note that Noah is portrayed passively in this verse – he did not earn Yahweh’s favor, but Yahweh looked upon him with favor.
Themes and Main Point
There are three main themes in this passage: mankind’s sinfulness, Yahweh’s righteous judgment, and Yahweh’s grace. The first theme dominates verses 1-5. As we noted in the exegesis of verse 5, mankind’s sin is extensive, total, internal, exclusive, and constant. It is extremely important to note that this was not only the condition of mankind before the flood. Moses actually argued the exact opposite when he recorded Yahweh’s reason for promising never again to curse the ground, “For the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Using language clearly parallel to 6:5, Yahweh pronounced that man’s nature had not changed – he is still totally depraved.
The second theme is Yahweh’s judgment. While Yahweh had already judged the Serpent, Adam, and Eve in Genesis 3, the flood remains the most vivid picture of God’s judgment in Genesis.[52] In this passage, Yahweh declares that He will pour our His wrath on sin so fully as to return the world to a state of being “formless and void” when the deeps covered the face of the whole earth.
The third theme is God’s favor/grace (חן, LXX: χαρις). Genesis 6:8 contains the first mention of God’s grace/favor in the Bible (though the concept is certainly present earlier) and it comes at just the point when sin seems to reign triumphant, God’s good creation is ruined, and His image will be wiped off the face of the earth. At just that point we read of Noah – as a son, in the image of God, whose name means rest, who will bring relief from the curse, and (most importantly) who has found favor in the eyes of Yahweh.
The main point of Genesis 6:1-8 ties these three themes together, it is: mankind is totally depraved and deserving of God’s wrath which He will pour out on all creation except those who find refuge in His grace.
Biblical Theology
Just as the Exodus functions as the paradigmatic act of redemption in the OT, the flood is the paradigmatic act of eschatological judgment. Genesis 6:1-8 contributes to the flood narrative by bridging the gap between the genealogies of 4-5 and the flood narrative proper in 6-8. Furthermore, the text provides the immediate cause for the flood, without which the flood would stand apart as the only judgment in Genesis before which God did not descend to see man’s sin (3:9ff, 11:5-6, 18:21).[53] As we noted earlier, the flood contains the most vivid depiction of God’s judgment in the OT (cf. Psalm 29), and is used by NT authors as a picture of the final judgment (2 Pet. 3:5-7).
Yet by the grace of God there remained a remnant of grace saved through the judgment – Noah and his family. Genesis 6:8 is the reminder that Yahweh’s promise of a seed of the woman will not fail. Despite His announcement that He will blot out mankind from the face of the earth, Yahweh will not allow His plan of redemption to fail. Although Noah is not the final seed who will crush the serpent’s head, He looks forward to that seed. He is a son of the faithful line, a divine image bearer, a bringer of rest, a prophetic voice (Heb. 11:7, 2 Pet. 2:5), a priestly guardian and mediator, and a kingly head of a new creation. Noah pointed forwards to Abraham, Moses, and David after him, who would be faithful in their generations as men of Yahweh’s favor. Yet, neither Noah, Abraham, Moses, nor David were the final prophet, priest, or king; they all looked forward to Jesus. He is the perfect image of God (Col. 1:15), the man of God’s favor (Luke 2:52), the bringer of rest (Matt. 11:28-29), the faithful high priest (Heb. 2:7), the Davidic king (Matt. 1:17) of a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), the righteous prophet (Heb. 1:1-2), the one who delivers us from the wrath to come (1 Th. 1:10).
Application
The application on of Genesis 6:1-8 is fairly straightforward once one has grasped the main point of the passage and how it relates to Christ. The applications are threefold. First, mankind is still sinful and deserving of God’s wrath. Human nature has not change since the flood (8:21) and we are all born children of Adam. Second, God will judge sin decisively and finally. While He has promised never again to wipe out creation with a flood, the present age is being stored up for a judgment by fire of which the flood was only a shadow and a type (2 Pet. 3:7). Third, the only means of escaping this judgment is by the grace of God, which can only be found in the last Adam – Jesus Christ. Though it may seem obscure, this passage is nothing but the gospel of grace in the son of God who undoes the curse of Genesis 3 and brings us into new creation rest and it calls for sinners to repent of their sin and trust in the grace of God offered to them in Christ.
* Cover image is a painting by John Martin entitled “Noah’s Ark amid the Great Flood.”
[1] Walton, John H. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, p. 291.
[2] Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1-15. Dallas: Word Books, 1987, p. 139.
[3] Ibid.
[4] VanGemeren, Willem A. “The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 (An Example of Evangelical Demythologization?).” Westminster Theological Journal, 1981, p. 331. VanGemeren also observes that Moses singles one aspect of multiplying: the bearing of daughters. This emphasis on daughters looks back to Genesis 5 where, in contrast to the genealogy of Cain, Moses tells us after each generation that “he had other sons and daughters” (5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 22, 26, 30). While daughters are singled out in chapter 5 and 6:1, it not enough to conclude that the daughters in 6:1 are only Sethites, especially given the generic use of האדם.
[5] Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, p. 263.
[6] VanGemeren, p. 340-341.
[7] Newman, Robert C. “The Ancient Exegesis of Genesis 6:2, 4.” Grace Theological Journal, 1984, p. 15-22.
[8] Op. cit., p. 27-31.
[9] Walton, p. 292.
[10] For a full treatment of 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, see Keil, C. F. Commentary on the OT: Pentateuch. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001, p. 83-85n1.
[11] Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, p. 246.
[12] Birney, Leroy. “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 6:1-4.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1970, p. 45.
[13] Kline, Meredith G. “Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4.” Westminster Theological Journal, 1962, p. 188.
[14] As does Wenham, p. 141, and Chaloupka, Libor. “The Daughters of Humans and the Sons of God (Gen 6:1-4).” Communio Viatorum, 2016, p. 374.
[15] Cefalu, Rita F. “Royal Priestly Heirs to the Restoration Promise of Genesis 3:15: A Biblical Theological Perspective on the Sons of God in Genesis 6.” Westminster Theological Journal, 2014, p. 352-353.
[16] Kline, p. 189.
[17] Op. cit., p. 190.
[18] Hamilton, p. 264, cf. Clines, David J. A. “The Significance of the ‘Sons of God’ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‘Primeval History’ (Genesis 1-11).” Journal for the Study of the OT, 1979, p. 33.
[19] Kline, p. 191-192.
[20] Walton, p. 293-294.
[21] Kline, p. 193-194.
[22] Op. cit., p. 194-196.
[23] Op. cit., p. 196.
[24] Clines, p. 34.
[25] Cefalu, p. 359.
[26] Ibid, cf. Murray, p. 246-247.
[27] Clines, p. 35-36.
[28] Waltke, p. 117; Ross, Allen P. Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, p. 181-182.
[29] Cline’s proposal that the author of Genesis 6:1-8 did not work with a “closed system” of either human or non-human is strained and condescending, especially given the clear identification of man as the image of God in Genesis 1:26-27.
[30] VanGemeren, p. 346-347.
[31] Kline, p. 194-195.
[32] See comments on verse 5 for further support.
[33] Wenham, p. 141; Hamilton, p. 265.
[34] Clines, p. 36.
[35] Cefalu, p. 364.
[36] Wehnam, p. 141.
[37] Hamilton, p. 266; Waltke, p. 117.
[38] Walton, p. 295.
[39] Marrs, Rick. “The Sons of God (Genesis 6:1-4).” Restoration Quarterly, 1980, p. 222.
[40] Birney, p. 51.
[41] Kline, p. 190.
[42] Murray, p. 246-248.
[43] Wenham, p. 143
[44] Ibid.
[45] Any attempt to argue that there were no Nephilim after the flood and that the spies were simply lying run in to some problems quickly. First, neither Caleb nor Joshua contradict the report of the other spies. Second, Deuteronomy 9:1-2 confirms that their report about the “sons of Anak” was true. The spies fault was not in bringing a false report, but in urging the people not to trust in Yahweh to deliver the land into their hands.
[46] Coleran, p. 501-502.
[47] Murray, p. 248.
[48] I am indebted to Dr. Carlton Wynne’s class “Doctrine of Man” for these designations.
[49] Wenham, p. 144-145.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Although the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah comes close.
[53] VanGemeren, p. 327-328.
Servant of the Sovereign 