The first 11 chapters of the Bible cover the creation of the world and the time before the flood. If you want to sound smart you can call this the antediluvian period. But smack dab in the middle of the passage—chapter 6–there are introduced new characters, the sons of God and the Nephilim. Let’s pull on this thread and see where it leads.

The start to Genesis 6 reads like this,

When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose. So the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God would sleep with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men. —Genesis 6:1-4 (NET)

Who are these new characters? Generally the first place I go with difficult-to-understand-passages is to what the actual words are and where else they occur. “sons of God” is ben (son) and elohim (spiritual being, predominately translated as God). Both words appear separately numerous times throughout scripture but only appear together five times in Gen. 6:2, 6:4; and Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7. The word Nephilim (nefil) occurs even fewer times: just Gen. 6:4 and Num. 13:33. I was originally going to talk about both but I ran out of time and it will have to be a separate post.

Before I go too far, the NET Bible study notes to summarize the common interpretation of this phrase in Gen. 6 and is a good starting point.

The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” (בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים, vne haʾelohim) occurs only here (Gen 6:2, 4) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In Gen 6 the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in Gen 5, while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.

I was raised with a “Sethite” interpretation (2nd) of Genesis 6, that the descendants of Seth intermarried with the sons of Cain. This idea points back to the Genesis 3:15 prophecy of hostility between the sons of the woman and the sons of the serpent. When Cain killed Abel he corrupted himself (beyond the sins of his father) and was marked by God as separate from his other siblings. This motif is carried throughout the Genesis narrative with Ham and Shem/Japheth, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and probably many other that I’m forgetting. Incidentally, it is usually the younger son that carries the name of the woman and the older that defects to the serpent. There is also striking imagery with Jesus being born from the woman only as a fulfillment of the Genesis 3:15 prophecy, although I’ve not fully fleshed out that thought yet.

The juxtaposition of the sons of the woman and the sons of the serpent has good support from Biblical narrative. But applying it to Genesis 6 seems to require more work to make it fit than I like. Generally I subscribe to an “Occam’s razor approach” to Biblical interpretation—the simplest interpretation is generally the best. The first hurdle for a Sethite interpretation of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 is how Job uses the phrase.

Now the day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord—and Satan also arrived among them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” And Satan answered the Lord, “From roving about on the earth, and from walking back and forth across it.” So the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil.” —Job 1:6-8 (NET)

The same phrase, ben elohim, is now used to refer to this divine council that presents itself before God. You have the accuser, Satan, claiming that Job only loves God because he is blessed. There is so much here that I wish I could dive into but all that to say, interpreting the sons of God as sons of Seth (interpretation 2) in this context makes little sense. It seems a much stronger argument that there were two separate groups in Gen. 6, the daughters of man (adam) and the sons of God (elohim).

Now let’s go down a slight rabbit hole (are we already on a rabbit hole?). I originally said ben elohim only appeared 5 times; twice in Gen. 6 and three times in Job. But let’s look at Duet. 32:8-9, an excerpt from a song sung by Moses near the end of his life.

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind [sons of adam], he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly [sons of…]. For the Lord’s allotment is his people, Jacob is his special possession. —Duet. 32:8-9 (NET)

Let’s start with what I do know (because there is a lot here I don’t). The dividing of the nations points back to Genesis 10, often called the table of nations, where the genealogy of Shem, Ham, and Japheth are given. Specifically, verse 25 says, “Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg because in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan.” The very next chapter begins the tower of Babel narrative and the dividing of the nations. So the division of the sons of adam makes sense. But why according to the “heavenly assembly”?

When I first read this passage I expected the heavenly assembly to be “sons of God”. In fact, the ESV translates it as such. But if you look at the Masoretic Text it actually reads ben yisra’el (sons of Israel). The NASB translates it this way as well and the NET somewhere in the middle with “heavenly assembly.” So what gives? The Bible Project episode on spiritual warfare (starting at 23:40) and Michael Heiser’s paper both helped me work through Duet. 32:8.

The confusion mainly comes down to which manuscript is used for the English translation. The Masoretic Text is a carefully copied record of the Hebrew Bible and is the basis for most English translations today. In this record, Duet. 32:8 reads, “sons of Israel” (ben yisr’el). But in fragments found at Qumran soon after WWII, Duet. 32:8 reads, “sons of God” (ben elohim). The Dead Sea scrolls (dated 250 B.C. to 130 A.D.) are some of the earliest Biblical manuscripts that we have and predate the Masoretic text (dated 9th c. A.D. to end of the Middle ages) by a significant amount of time [Table 2.3, “Scribes and Scriptures” by John Meade and Peter Gurry]. What likely happened is that through a scribal error (or choice) “sons of God” became “sons of Israel”.

And to its credit, in the context of Duet. 32:8, this change actually makes sense because the next verse talks about “the Lord’s allotment… Jacob”. But in the context of Genesis 10-11 it makes little sense. It is talking about the 70 descendants of Noah (yes, there are 70 people there, I counted) and the division of the nations; Israel is still seven or so generations away! This kind of interpretive error is similar to taking a Sethite view of Genesis 6 out of convenience. Even more interestingly, in some Ugaritic texts found at Ras Shamra in the 1930s, the pantheon of El (God) is said to contain 70 “sons of El”. That is a striking connection to Duet. 32:8, the division of the nations, and support for a “sons of God” over “sons of Israel” reading.

Wrapping Up

So why does this matter? First, a “sons of God” reading of Duet. 32:8 not only agrees with Job’s picture of a divine council but also a Genesis 6 interpretation that the sons of man were distinct from the sons of God. Second, it means that these sons of God were given some degree of authority over the nations when they were divided at Babel (yet according to Duet. 32:8, Israel is God’s special nation that he alone rules). Third, it completely changes how we read Genesis 6. No longer are the “sons of God” explained away as the righteous line of Seth. They are divine creatures that show up both in the council of God in Job, among the nations of men in Genesis, and being given authority over the nations from God in Duet. 32:8. Seeing the “sons of God” in this light is pregnant with meaning, especially when we dive into the Nephilim next.