Who Were The Sons of God and Daughters of Men? (Q & A)

By: John Spellman (updated 03-07-2016 11:00 pm)

Q. Who are the sons of God and the daughters of man mentioned in Genesis 6:1-2?

Much speculation has been perpetuated over the years on this subject. The most popular answer, and subsequently the most represented in film, mythology, and stories, has been that the sons of God were angels that began to mate with and take wives of the female descendants of Adam. This idea has led to stories being written about mythological creatures resulting from these unions called Nephilim which are supposed to be some kind of half human-half angel hybrid. The basis for these claims lies in the use of the term “sons of God” in the book of Job, clearly referencing heavenly angels. It is then asserted that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-2 must be a reference to angelic beings mating with human women. This interpretation, though popular and makes for great story telling and movies, is incorrect. It fails to take under consideration the context and the other uses of this term.

The second view is that the “sons of God” refer to the bloodline of Seth while the “daughters of man” reference the bloodline of Cain. This view is more consistent with scripture. Several pieces of evidence combine to support this convincing claim.

Table of Contents

The Genealogical Record                 Pg. 02

The Worldly and The Spiritual       Pg. 04

The Family of God                             Pg. 06

The Family of the Devil                    Pg. 10 

Unequally Yoked Marriages            Pg. 12

The Genealogical Record 

First, the context of Genesis 6 is in the much larger context of the genealogy of Seth. Genesis 4:16-24 outlines the genealogy of Cain down to Lamech. Genesis 4:25-26 emphasizes that Seth replaced Abel. Genesis 5 emphasizes the bloodline of Seth down to Noah and his 3 children. While this chapter suggests that it records the “Generations of Adam”, it is not a complete genealogy as it excludes Abel and Cain. The clear purpose is to focus on the bloodline of Seth to the exclusion of Abel and Cain’s household. This bloodline follows from Adam down to Noah and his three children. In this record is contained the story of the flood (and the events shortly after) from Genesis 6 to Genesis 9:27. However, after the story of the flood, the genealogy continues in Genesis 9:28-29 with the death of Noah. These facts suggest that the story of the flood is within the larger story of the “Generations of Adam”. A story which does not conclude until Genesis 9:29.

It was not uncommon for stories to be embedded within a genealogy, especially one as important as the Flood. In the record of Cain’s descendants we read about Lamech committing murder. In the book of Numbers (chapter 1), after the census, we are told briefly the story of why the Levites are not numbered. Stories seem to be introduced to the account of a record to explain why the record is what it is. These stories seem to break the pattern of the record to account for why things are the way they are.

As an example, Cain’s genealogy typically follows a pattern. There is a marriage, a child bearing, and then subsequent child bearing. However, while few details are given about each child, Lamech seems to be the focus of Cain’s grandchildren. This could be, perhaps, because he, like Cain, committed murder. Additionally, he seems to be the first person in history to marry two wives. This shows us that the emphasis on Lamech’s story within the generations of Cain seems to be for the purpose of highlighting the moral degeneracy of Cain’s family. The scripture does not go further into Cain’s genealogy in chapter 4.

This example demonstrates that it seems to be common practice to interrupt a genealogical record with historical details relevant to explaining the history of the family. Thus, the story of the flood does not stand alone, as a story independent of Seth’s family history; but is a necessary part of that history. While the flood story spans from chapters 6 through 9, and is the longest interruption in the genealogical record, it is still part of the record of the “Generations of Adam”. Other interruptions, like that of Enoch (son of Cain), Lamech, or Enoch (son of Jared) were much shorter and contained very brief but necessary information. The book of Numbers also follows this pattern of giving records and sometimes interrupting those records to give necessary detail.

Although the flood story interrupts the genealogical record of chapter 5, it clearly resumes the record in Genesis 9:28-29 following the same pattern followed in the records of chapter 5. This is the surest evidence that the flood story was embedded in the genealogical record. To see that the record is continued, one need only compare the pattern in Genesis 9:28-29 to the earlier pattern used which was certainly not always a pattern followed throughout the book of Genesis. It is, however, a pattern indigenous to the “Generations of Adam”.

Gen 5:30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 
Gen 5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 
Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 9:28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. Gen 9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Notice that the pattern and style of writing are exactly the same, thus indicating that the passage quoted from chapter 9 resumes the genealogical record which continues in chapter 10 with the generations of the sons Noah. While the focus shifts to the generations of the sons of Noah, these records are still a part of the “Book of the Generations of Adam”. What is also interesting, and worthy of mention, is the fact that the generations of Cain end with a Lamech (in chapter 4) while the generations of Adam end with the death of a Lamech just prior to the flood story (in chapter 5). These were not the same Lamech, but it is interesting that one genealogy ends with a “Lamech” while the other pauses for 4 chapters with the death of a “Lamech”.

A crucial thing to notice in all these details is the following: The Genealogical record of Cain’s generations and Adam’s generations (focusing on Seth’s bloodline) is clearly made distinct as we transition from Genesis chapters 4 to 5. In fact, since Cain is the son of Adam it would make sense that he would be mentioned in a book called “The Book of the Generations of Adam”. Yet, we find that Cain is excluded (as is Abel, though one could argue that this is because he was dead). Why does the scripture only focus on Seth’s bloodline as the “Generations of Adam”? Why aren’t the generations of Cain listed under the umbrella of “Generations of Adam” rather than being given before such a contextualization was specified? It seems that scripture goes out of its way to make clear distinction between the two generations of Adam’s children. But, why?

Since the two bloodlines are clearly contextually separated—even to the point of making it seem as if Cain was estranged or disowned from the family—it stands to reason that these bloodlines intermarrying would have been a big deal.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

But we are still left with some unanswered questions. Why would the female children of Cain be called “daughters of men” while the male children of Seth were called “sons of God”?

The Worldly and The Spiritual

The scripture seems to make clear that Cain’s lineage was of a sinful disposition while Seth’s seems to be the more faithful branch. We made clear earlier that the two genealogies were contextually distinct. What wasn’t clear is why. However, closer examination reveals this mystery.

Cain’s lineage seems to repeat his mistakes and mistakes of their own. Lamech, for example, marries two wives and commits murder. He even proclaims himself to be worse off than Cain and worthy of more vengeance should someone slay him.

Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 
Gen 4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. Seth’s lineage, on the other hand, follows a different pattern. 
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 
Gen 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Here we find that scripture specifically annunciates, after the birth of Enos, that men began to “call upon the name of the Lord”. Clearly, this announcement has spiritual implications for the bloodline of Seth. Nowhere in the context of Cain’s lineage are we told that men “call upon the name of the Lord”. Instead we find that much of the actions of Cain’s offspring tend toward a direction the opposite of faith.

Continuing with Seth’s family history, we find that Genesis 5 gives us a short blurb about Enoch, who walked with God; Methuselah, who seems to have lived the longest recorded lifespan in the Bible; and Noah, the only human to find grace in the eyes of God in the antediluvian world just prior to the flood.

This demonstrates that, of all the stories told about the moral character of men between Genesis 4 and Genesis 5, Cain’s lineage is marked by disobedience while Seth’s lineage seems to be marked by individuals who were blessed and favored by God. Cain’s lineage seems more carnal, while Seth’s had a more spiritual reputation.

This conclusion is also evidenced by the fact that in Genesis 5 is contained the “book of the genealogy of Adam” and Cain is left out of this lineage. As the record begins, it points out that Adam (and Eve) was created in the likeness of God. Next, scripture does something strange. It points out that Adam begot a son in his own likeness and after his image. This was a statement not attributed to Cain, nor was it attributed to Abel.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

In what way was Seth more in the likeness and image of Adam? Was it simply that Seth physically looked like Adam? Did Cain and Abel’s physical features more closely resemble Eve? Or, is something more going on here?

One may notice that the language used to describe Seth’s likeness and closeness to the image of Adam is the same language used in Genesis 1:26. When God created mankind, He not only created them to look like God or to share some common attributes, but also to resemble God in having dominion and especially in having moral character. Thus, in the first chapter of the Bible, we see that being created “in the image and likeness” is not just about physical appearance, but implies much more. Today, we understand that while man was created in the image of God, much of that image (as it was originally intended) has been marred; humanity does not resemble God to the fullest extent we were designed to in Creation. For this reason, the plan of redemption has much to do with restoring the image of God in humanity.

Elsewhere in scripture (See for example: 1 Peter 1:16; Lev 11:44; Lev 19:2; Lev 20:7), people are commanded to be holy because God is holy. This demonstrates that the rationale for holiness is the fact that God, Himself, is holy and man should be like and resemble God. This is not to suggest that man can be God: but rather, man is to be “like” God. Jesus makes a statement that men are to be “perfect” as our Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt 5:48) Elsewhere, Jesus stated that we should love our enemies and we would be the “children of the Highest” because God, Himself, is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. (Luke 6:35) Thus, we see a repeated theme in scripture that expects true believers to be like and do the things that God does just because “God is like” or “God does” them. Scripture, therefore, makes clear that being like or in the image of God is not just about physical resemblance, but also character.

In Genesis 5, scripture repeats the fact that Adam (and subsequently Eve) was created in the likeness of God, repeating the very words that God used in Genesis 1:26. In doing so, scripture is calling attention to the fact that Adam was created to be like and resemble God. Since this is repeating the words of Genesis 1:26, we know this statement has more implications than just Adam’s physical appearance.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Next, we find that Adam has a son that is in his own likeness and after his image. This language again mirrors what was in Genesis 1:26 and repeated in Genesis 5:1. This was not done by accident but by design. If Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, and Seth was begotten in the image and likeness of Adam, than Seth must also be in the image and likeness of God.

However, to fully understand why this is emphasized about Seth, we need to understand that all of mankind was designed to be in the image and likeness of God. Cain and Abel were designed to be in the image of God. When God makes a statement about his judgment against those who shed blood, he states that mankind was created in the image of God.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This proves that it was not just Adam who was created in God’s image, but all of mankind (male and female). God held a particular disdain for the shedding of human blood because of the fact that humanity was created in the image of God. While, clearly, sin mars that image of God in man, and makes some of the attributes of God unrecognizable in humanity, Cain and his descendants were still created in God’s image. This fact leaves us to ponder: why does Genesis 5 go out of its way to proclaim that Seth was in the likeness and image of Adam who was created in the likeness and image of God?

Since all the men, at least to some degree, anatomically resemble God[1], we may conclude that Seth resembled both Adam and God in a way that Cain and his descendants did not: it was likely the character of Seth that set him apart and made him more notably like, and in the image of, God. It’s interesting that Seth’s name means “put” or “to place”. This was the same verb used in Genesis 3:15 as God promised to “put” or “to place” enmity between the serpent and the woman. This fact has led some scholars to believe that Eve might have hoped that Seth was the promised Messiah child that would “put” enmity between the serpent along with the serpent’s offspring and the woman along with her offspring. The name seems to be a clear allusion to the promise of Genesis 3:15.

[1] 1 Cor 11:7 indicates that although women were also created in the image of God, as the counterpart to the man, having some different features, women were the glory of the man whereas man was the image and glory of God. God is distinctly represented as a male in scripture. He is most commonly associated with terms only applied to males: King, Father, God, etc. The pronoun “He” also evidences the masculinity of God. We can conclude that God’s gender is clearly expressed as male throughout scripture indicating that Adam’s gender was given to more closely express God’s image than that of Eve’s. This is no way diminishes the fact that Eve was created in the image of God (Gen 1:27), but Adam seems to be closer to that image anatomically. Eve, as Adam’s counterpart, still resembles God but she also holds some anatomical differences which allow her to do certain things Adam cannot—namely, give birth. It should also be noted that Eve was “given” (Gen 1:12) to Adam and that Adam was whom God addressed first after the incident in the garden. (Gen 1:9)  

Overall, the combined evidence shows that Seth’s generations seem to be of a more spiritual nature. We first learn that, throughout Seth’s lineage, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord”. Next, Seth is the only son listed in the Generations of Adam. Scripture places emphasis on the fact that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and Seth was created in the image and likeness of Adam. Seth’s children seem to follow a more spiritual path: Enoch “walked with God” and Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord”.

Now that we understand the spiritual nature of Seth’s bloodline in comparison to Cain’s we are still left with the question: why would Cain’s bloodline would be called “sons of man” while Seth’s “sons of God”? The answer to this question is pronounced throughout scripture.

The Family of God

First, it is important to point out that God does not pro-create—He creates. The angels were not biological sons of God. God neither gave birth to them, nor did He, through sexual reproduction, produce them. God created them! Thus, the angels are not sons of God in the biological sense, but were adopted as sons into the “Creation Family” when God created them. God is their “Father” because He created them—which in my book gives God the right to call them “sons” even though they were not pro-created. When they were called into existence, the one who called them has every right to claim them as legitimate sons. It was God who created the concept of “family” and therefore He can establish the rules and guidelines behind the roles of the members of the family. Thus, the angels are sons of God simply because God says they are!

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

For those who doubt my reasoning I would ask a simple question: If Jesus is the “only begotten of the Father”, how could the angels be sons of God? Clearly, God created the angels, He did not procreate them. Additionally, Jesus was also not “begotten” or “procreated”. The term “only begotten” refers to Jesus being “begotten from a woman” and taking on the role as “Son of God”. In other words, Jesus became the Son of God; prior to His incarnation, He was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. (Php 2:6-8) He was not the “son of God” but equal with God. By virtue of God’s decree (Psa 2:7 cf. Heb 1:5), the Word became Jesus—the only begotten “Son of God” (John 1:14; Mark 1:11). As “the Word”, Jesus was fully divine and fully God.[2]  (John 1:1-3)

These Bible truths establish the fact that God never procreated or had any biological children. He created the angels and adopted them as sons into the family of heaven; He later, through a heavenly decree (which would result in the salvation of humanity), had “the Word” step down from the Godhead and sent Earth to be incarnated as the “Son of God” Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father. (Php 2:7-8) Thus, no being, in all of existence, is a “son of God” in the literal-biological sense (as we think of it). “Son” is a term of endearment that God uses to establish the closeness of the relationship between “Creator” and created. In the case of Jesus, “son” was the term used to communicate the role the “Word” would take on—living a life of humble subservience to God (as a human being) rather than being equal (as in eternity past). (Php 2:7) This act was a demonstration of God’s universally unparalleled sacrifice and humility as well as His unmatched loved. Understanding the nature of this sacrifice will likely be a study throughout eternity future.

While the scope of this study was not intended to be an exhaustive study of the nature of Christ, understanding the doctrine of the nature of Christ establishes the fact that God does not procreate—He creates! Thus, there are no “sons of God” in the pro-creational sense. A son of God, excluding how the term was used in the messianic sense, is any created being that is a member of (adopted into) the family of heaven.

[2] While some have used Proverbs 8 to suggest that Jesus was “begotten”, the verb used in verse 22, often translated “possessed”, “acquired”, or “brought forth”, does not mean to beget (as in to give birth or procreate)—it means “to bring forth for a purpose”. Thus, Jesus was brought forth at the beginning to accomplish a purpose. This does not indicate that He was created, but rather called upon to do a particular project. For example, if I bring forth an axe for the purpose of chopping down a tree—it does not mean that I created the axe, but rather that I took it with me, from wherever it previously existed, and accomplished the work of chopping down the tree. As another example, I can bring forth a book from my bookshelf for the purpose of reading. I didn’t create the book, I just took it from its previous location to accomplish some purpose. Thus, the term “possessed” (KJV) used in verse 22 is not a statement of origin. This verse, therefore, indicates that Jesus was brought into consultation for a project—not that this was His origin. Verse 23 indicates that “wisdom” was anointed (or setup) from everlasting—not that He was ever created. Some scholars note that Proverbs 8 may not even be a Messianic prophecy: the context of these verses was a personification of wisdom. But, regardless of how one interprets the passage, it does not indicate an origin for Jesus. Jesus was co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 
Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 
Job 2:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Many look at these verses and assume that the term “sons of God” means that the heavenly beings were angels. However, this term did not apply to Satan’s angels. In fact, the text seems to represent Satan as an outsider rather than a “son of God” himself. In other words, this wasn’t a heavenly meeting of all angels (good and bad). This was a heavenly meeting with God’s angels—a meeting which Satan crashed in order to challenge God in a public forum. The purpose of this challenge was to accuse God of foul play. Satan was not among friends, he was challenging God in a forum that he hoped would create turmoil among the ranks of those faithful to God.

Rev 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 

Rev 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 
Rev 12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

These verses solidify the fact that prior to the heavenly meeting recorded in Job, Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven. It is specifically stated that the angels “the third part of the stars of heaven” were casted to the earth. This shows that they were unlikely to be welcomed in a heavenly forum like the one depicted in Job. Satan had the audacity to interrupt the meeting in order to publically accuse God.

Thus, the “sons of God” were not just any angelic beings—they were, specifically, the angels which remained loyal to God. Originally, all the created angels were sons of God; however, after Satan’s rebellion, many of them lost that status and were excommunicated from the family of heaven. This strengthens the fact that the phrase “sons of God” has nothing to do with the type of being one is. Instead, the term references a created beings relationship to God. Even in Job, we see that all angels were not considered sons of God (Satan, for example, was unwelcome and brought tension to the meeting). This is proof that the phrase does not necessarily designate an angelic being and was not always intended to suggest that the phrase could only be used toward beings that were not human: the angels were not sons of God because they were angels; they were sons of God because they were in relationship with God!

With that said, scripture tells us a great deal about how one becomes a son (or daughter) of God. There are numerous scriptures which use the term to apply to humans. This further solidifies the fact that the term is not an indicator of the species of creation; but rather the character and relationship the individuals have with God.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Notice that those who receive Christ have the power to become sons and daughters of God. This gift is also given to those who “believe on his name”. We know that, according to John 1:1-3, the Word was in the beginning and He was: with God, was God, and created all things created. If people become sons of God by receiving Him, and also by believing “on his name”: this explains why Seth’s lineage would be called the “sons of God” when scripture clearly states that starting with Seth’s lineage “men began to call on the name of the Lord”. In essence, they were calling on God before one member of the Godhead stepped down and took on human form. This gave them power to become the “sons of God”.

The promise of John 1:12 was not only for the New Testament times going forward. It was true for the generations past before Christ ever stepped foot on earth. While the Old Testament figures never met Jesus in the flesh or knew him by the name “Jesus” they looked forward to him by faith as He was prefigured in every aspect of Old Testament worship and sacrifice. Additionally, since Jesus is God (the second person in the Godhead), calling on the name of God is calling on Jesus.

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Notice that in both New Testament passages Joel 2:32 is quoted. They specifically state that calling upon the “name of the Lord” would result in salvation or deliverance. Acts 2:16 specifically states that Joel is whom Peter is quoting (in his discourse) as he gives the series of verses from the book of Joel including the one used in Acts 2:21. Then, immediately after these quotes, Peter begins to talk about Jesus and His ministry: this suggests that Peter applied the meaning of these verses to Jesus. In verse 36, Peter declares that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. When the men he preaches to ask what should be done, Peter declares that they should all be baptized in the “name of Jesus Christ”.

Furthermore, if we take a close look at Romans 10, we see that Paul applies the term “call upon the name of the Lord” directly to Jesus.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Here, Paul tells his audience to verbally confess “the Lord” Jesus and believe that God raised Him. He gives his rationale, stating that people believe with their heart and through open confession of that belief with the mouth they have salvation. Paul then quotes a scripture stating that those who believe what God has done will have no cause for embarrassment, “whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed”. Next, Paul states that “the Lord” is rich all that “call upon him”.

Paul never stated that he was instructing people to call upon the name of the Lord. He specifically stated to confess “the Lord Jesus” with the mouth. In his instructions, he declared two things: believe that God “raised up” Jesus and confess [verbally] the Lord Jesus. In short, the two imperatives are: “confess” and “believe”. The rationale given behind “confessing the Lord Jesus” was that “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation”. In verses 11 and 12 we are given the reason behind Paul’s two imperatives: One should believe God raised up Jesus because whoever believes in Jesus will not be ashamed. (Isiah 28:16 cf. Romans 9:33) One should confess “the Lord Jesus” with the mouth because “the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him”.

In this instance, Paul clearly equates “whosoever believeth on him” with “belief in Jesus” much like John does in John 3:16. Paul also equates “confessing the Lord Jesus” with the phrase “call upon him”. In other words, to call on “the same Lord” who is rich to all who “call upon him” is to “confess the Lord Jesus”. He further solidifies this point by quoting Joel 2:32 indicating that whoever calls upon “the name of the Lord” shall be saved. Since the imperative was to “confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus” Paul clearly equated “calling on the name of the Lord” with calling upon or confessing Jesus! Thus, in Romans 10, Paul attributes calling “upon the name of the Lord” with calling upon Jesus!

This is consistent with John 1:12 which stated that through belief in Jesus’ “name”, men had power to become sons of God. In the book of John, and the book of Romans, the attributes of God are applied to Jesus Christ. This is not surprising considering the divine nature of Jesus (His pre-existence as God before taking on humanity). Thus, to “believe on his name” (Isa 28:16) is equated with believing on the name of Jesus. (John 1:12) To “call upon the name of the Lord” is to call upon Jesus.

Romans chapter 10 is in the context of a discussion about Jesus Christ and applies Old Testament terms directly to Christ. When Paul quotes Joel 2:32, alluding to Christ, he was essentially saying that “the name of the Lord” upon which all should call was Jesus Christ! This is significant because when Joel 2:32 uses the phrase “call upon the name of the Lord”, the word translated “Lord” is not “Adonai” but rather the name of God “YHWH”. Thus, when Paul attributes this passage “call upon the name of ‘YHWH’” to Jesus, He is essentially directly calling Jesus “YHWH”—the very name of God! He does this because before Jesus took on human flesh—He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit were united co-eternally as one God (the Godhead). Consequently, Jesus has every right to the name of God as the Father. (Php 2:6; John 15:16)

This means that when men called upon “the name of the Lord” in Old Testament times, they were also calling on the name of Jesus (but not by his earthly name). John 1:12 states that when we believe on His name, we have power to become the “sons of God”. Paul adds that with the heart one believes and with the mouth one makes confession of what the heart believes. This was a rule not just for New Testament times, but apparently also held true in the Old Testament. This explains why the Bible draws attention to the fact that during the lineage of Seth, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord”. They were calling upon the name of the Lord [“YHWH”] by faith which, through faith, allowed them to become children of God—adopted into the family of heaven.

This evidence creates a strong case for why the children of Seth were called “sons of God”. They, like the angels who did not join Satan’s side in the rebellion, were in relationship with God. This relationship allowed them son-ship in the family of heaven much like belief in Jesus does for the Christian today. Jesus’ work not only accomplished the salvation of Christians in the New Testament era forward, but also the salvation of the believers from times past who trusted in what God was going to do through the coming Messiah.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Another strong evidence of this is demonstrated in the genealogy of Jesus. This genealogy begins with Jesus and traces his bloodline back through the line of Joseph. The end of the bloodline yields fascinating results.

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jesus comes from the lineage of Seth. This is the same lineage as those who “call upon the name of the Lord”. More fascinating was the fact that the lineage does not end with Adam but with God and treats Adam as a descendant of God. This is done in no other bloodline. Through the genealogical record, Jesus is traced all the way back to God legitimizing His claim to being the “Son of God”. Matthew chapter 6 traces Jesus from Abraham down through Joseph (Mary’s husband). The record of Luke chapter 3 is the only record to trace Jesus as far back as God. The only other record to trace a person back to God was Genesis 5’s “Generations of Adam”. That record traces from God, to Adam, to Seth, down through Noah – but leaving out Cain.

This evidence, combined, directly links the “sons of God” with the bloodline of Seth. One of Jesus’ messianic titles was “Son of God”. This title, since it was not an indication of his biological relationship, was indicative of His relationship and submissiveness to God as our example. The offspring of Seth, Jesus, became the enmity “put” or “placed” between the serpent and the woman. Jesus is also the undoing, the head crusher, of the serpent. While Seth, whose name means “to put” or “to place”, was not the placer of the enmity, his offspring (Jesus) was.

One could make that argument that because “the son” is in italics in Luke 3:38 (meaning that the words were not in the original but added to make the translation clear) that Adam is not directly called “the son of God”. However, one must still contend with the fact that the genealogical record still reads as if Adam was a son of God. If Enos is of Seth, implying that Seth is the father of Enos—we see a father-son relationship. If Seth is of Adam, implying a father-son relationship, we see that Adam being “of God” clearly implies another father-son relationship. Any way you slice it, Jesus’ bloodline is traced back to God through paternity. If, in this bloodline, God is referred to as the paternal parent of Adam (and thus Grandfather to Seth), we have significant evidence to show that Seth’s bloodline are the “sons of God”—mainly because of faith, but also traceable through the bloodlines of the faithful.

The fact that Jesus’ bloodline is traced through Seth back to God (as the paternal ancestor of Adam) lends strong credibility to Seth’s bloodline being referred to as “sons of God”. This group “called upon the name of the Lord”, and by faith were attributed as sons of God because they believed in Jesus (though they did not know Him by the name “Jesus”, but by “YHWH”).

The Family of the Devil

Now that we’ve established why Seth’s bloodline would have been called “sons of God”, we are left with the question of why Cain’s bloodline would have been called “sons of man” and the female descendants called “daughters of man”. Certainly they were all descendants of Adam—the first man. This certainly qualifies them to be sons and daughters of man. However, one could easily argue that Seth’s children were also sons and daughters of man. How can this be reconciled?

We established that beings become children of God by faith. Since God does not procreate, it is only by faith that any being becomes a child of God through adoption into the family of heaven. “Son” was thus a term of endearment that illustrated the relationship between the individual(s) and God. The “sons of God” in Job were not any angels, but were the loyal angels that did not join Satan’s rebellion.

Another important point to establish is the fact that Angel’s do not procreate.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

In the books of Matthew and Mark, Jesus made clear that angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage. Thus, humans would be like angels in the resurrection in that they will not get married (males), nor will they be “given” in marriage (females)[3] . In other words, there will be no new marriages. Since sex or procreation is a sin outside of marriage, the fact that angels don’t marry is a clear cut evidence that they don’t procreate. Furthermore, we only see examples of male angels in scripture. Not one scripture regarding heavenly beings portrays them as female. Each time a pronoun is used to describe an angel, much like God, the pronoun is always masculine.

In Genesis, we saw that Adam was at first created without a partner. This demonstrates that God does not always create beings with a counterpart as He did with the animal kingdom on earth. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that angels were not created to mate and procreate.

This fact makes it unlikely that angels even have the tools needed for procreation anatomically. Since God did not create them to marry, it is unlikely that He endowed them with the plumbing for sexual reproduction or even the desire. Angels are not likely able to experience the gratification that sexual reproduction affords. Thus, the Bible seems to suggest that angels don’t concern themselves with the human need for sexual intimacy. Jesus suggests that after the resurrection, those who are not married will be like the angels in this regard.

If angels could procreate, the dynamics of a family would be necessary. Family is the chosen institution through which to raise offspring. Sexual reproduction necessitates a family—especially among sentient and intelligent beings. Thus, if angels could procreate—they would marry and be given in marriage. The fact that they don’t marry—and the Biblical record depicts all of them as males—suggests that there is no procreation among them.

It is interesting that “daughters of God” is never mentioned in regard to an angelic being. There was a meeting amongst the “sons of God” in Job, but there were no females amongst these angelic beings. This fact establishes male-headship while simultaneously demonstrating that there were no female angels. No scriptural evidence suggests to the contrary. When the “sons of God” rejoiced in Creation, where were the daughters?

The only reference to “daughters of God” is an indirect reference in 2 Corinthians 6:18 suggesting that when humans separate themselves from the ways of the world, and avoid that which is unclean, God accepts them as “sons and daughters”. Thus, the only “daughters of God” recorded in scripture are, in fact, human. Angels, therefore, have no one to procreate with. We read in Genesis that the gift of procreation was given to animals but they could only mate with their own kind. A fish can’t mate with a bird and get a bird-fish crossbreed. Humans can’t mate with bull and get a Minotaur! Angels are not only a different species of creature, but scripture suggest that they are higher beings on the scale of Creation order. (Psalms 8:4-5) This makes crossbreeding between the two species highly unlikely—in fact, I declare the notion fiction! Angels are spiritual beings that do not concern themselves with carnal fleshy pleasures gifted to humans when performed in their proper, marital, context.

With this point established, we can affirm that Satan, himself, cannot procreate. This gives us an interesting insight into Genesis 3:15.

[3] Throughout scripture, females are referred to as being “given” to men. Adam refers to Eve as “the woman whom you ‘gave’ to be with me”. (Gen 3:12 cf. 1 Cor 11:9) Throughout scripture we see examples of fathers giving their daughters to husbands desiring to marry them.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Since the term “seed” typically referenced an “offspring”, who or what would be the offspring of the serpent? We already made clear that angels do not procreate. This text was not talking about placing enmity between Satan along with his biological angelic-demon children and Eve’s children. In fact, Satan has no biological children. This leaves us with the question: if Satan has no children, who or what are considered to be his “seed”? Fortunately, scripture makes this point clear.

1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 
1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 
1Jn 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. 
1Jn 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 
1Jn 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Here, scripture makes a clear distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil. Those who do the will of God and keep His commandments are the children of God. Those who don’t are the offspring of Satan. Note that verse 10 points out that one who does not do righteousness is not of God. Cain did not do rightly when he offered the sacrifice that was rejected. God said that if he had done well, he would have been accepted. However in doing wrong, sin was lying at the door. (Gen 4:7)

Additionally, verse 10 points out that one is not a child of God if they do not love their brother. Then verse 12 mentions Cain directly repeating the story of how he slew his brother because his brother’s works were righteous and his were evil. Thus, scripture makes clear that Cain, through his choices, was the offspring of Satan because he committed sin.

Those who do the works of Satan are considered the offspring of Satan. The seed of the serpent was not Satan’s biological offspring; rather, humans who chose to obey the devil rather than doing righteousness. Since Cain did not do what was right, he could not be “born of God” and thus claim to be a “son of God” though he was a direct descendant of Adam who was “of God”. Cain’s sins blocked him from entry into the family of God. (Isa 59:2) In this respect, Cain was a son of man (Adam) but not a son of God.

Cain’s children, like Lamech (who committed murder and had two wives), seem to have followed Cain on the path to service toward the devil. Thus, those who were children of Adam (the first man) but not children of God, were called “sons and daughters of man”, while those who “called upon the name of the Lord” by faith were called “sons and daughters of God”. More evidence exists besides this.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here, Jesus makes clear that those who lie or commit murder are the children of the devil. He makes the case that if the devil is one’s father, they will do the lusts of the devil. Actions seem to determine one’s patriarch. Since the devil is the father of lies, those who lie have the devil for a father. Since the devil was a murderer from the beginning, he is the originator (and father) of murders. Those who murder are his offspring. Isn’t it interesting that Cain murdered and then lied when God asked him where Abel was? (Gen 4:8-9) Clearly, Cain became the seed of the devil rather than a “son of God” through his choices.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

In these passages it is made clear that through the yielding of obedience a man becomes a servant to either God or Satan. Thus, one is either a child of God or a child of the devil through their choices. When Genesis 3:15 enunciated the controversy between the serpent’s offspring and the woman’s offspring, it was highlighting a controversy between two types of humans: those who would serve God and those who would serve Satan, thus becoming the offspring of one or the other.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, a contrast is depicted between the “children of the kingdom” (the children of God) and the “children of the wicked one” (the children of Satan). It was also suggested that Satan plants his children within the field of God’s children and until the time of harvest, it was impossible to know which was which. Each crop had to manifest into what it would become—only then could it truly be harvested, gathered, and grouped for the barn or for destruction. Both children are human, but one is of God while the other is of Satan the wicked one.

Thus we see why Cain’s female offspring were called “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:1. They were the biological descendants of Cain. They were likely very beautiful, resembling Eve. But while their ancestry could be traced to Adam (the first man) it was not linked to God. They were children of men (in that they were human), but disconnected from the family of heaven. Seth’s children, on the other hand were connected, by faith, to the family of heaven because they began to “call upon the name of the Lord”.

Unequally Yoked Marriages

Now that we understand why the terms “sons of God” and “daughters of man” are used to represent humans of different bloodlines, there are other questions that need to be answered. Why was it such a big deal for these two, clearly human, groups to intermarry? Hollywood and Jewish fables have notoriously made a spectacle out of these unions by suggesting that the unions produce a mutated crossbreed of human and angel. But that’s not really what happened. The problem is much deeper than that and still poses a problem today. The key to uncovering this mystery is in what God tells His people about marrying outside of their faith.

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 

The Bible doesn’t take issue with interracial marriages. The problem was with marrying outside of one’s faith. Usually, people of different countries served different gods. Thus, when you married outside of your people, you were most likely marrying into a different religion. Hence, the problem with foreign marriages had nothing to do with race and everything to do with faith.

Deu 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 
Deu 7:2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 
Deu 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 
Deu 7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 
Deu 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

Notice that God states that the reason why the children of Israel should not marry pagan women is because they would turn God’s people away from following Him and cause them to serve other gods. In other words, who one marries has direct spiritual consequences. To avoid the corruption of His people, God forbid intermarriages with nations that did not believe in Him. God clearly warned them about what the results of such marriages would yield. It is interesting that God does not use “probable” terminology. Instead, he seems to state definitively that this “will” happen. One can’t be linked with a pagan and maintain strict and unyielding faithfulness to the Lord.

Paul seems to make this point clear as well. He suggests that the relationship could not work because the two parties could not successfully merge together. They were too disagreeable like righteousness and unrighteousness, light and darkness, and even Christ and the devil (Belial). The last of these terms is interesting considering the promise of Genesis 3:15. “Enmity” was to be placed between the offspring of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. Through the marriages of believers with unbelievers, it seems as though unity was placed between what was supposed to be divided.

Even as far back as Creation, the first thing God did was create light and then put separation between light and darkness. It’s interesting that Paul concludes his discourse on unequally yoked unions by saying, “come out from among them and be ye separate”. This indicates that God wanted to keep separate spiritual light from spiritual darkness. Yet, people, even today, are constantly trying to join the two together because of physical (sexual) attraction.

Today, as Paul suggested in the New Testament and Moses suggested in the law, hearts are turned away from God through the joining together of believers with unbelievers. These unions cause and necessitate compromises which prevent someone from being able to completely and unreservedly follow the Lord. The problem isn’t as pronounced when neither party really desires to completely the follow the Lord. But one who wants to walk with God will have serious marital complications when the individual attempts to marry someone who does not share that ambition.

In Genesis 6, the human race seems to have tried the unequally yoked approach and the entire human race (save Noah’s family) was wiped out because of it. The question is: what was so bad resulting from the marriages of God’s “sons” with the children of Cain?

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

These intermarriages had turned away the hearts of men from God to such an extent that their thoughts were only evil continually and it grieved the heart of God that He created man. This shows us the level of spiritual depravity people can reach through marriages with those who don’t share faith in God. In a short span of time, the populous became so corrupt and evil that God had to take action and destroy it. These women were apparently so beautiful that through their influence, they corrupted and destroyed the spiritual lives of those who were once followers of God. Even worse, their children became tyrants and sinners themselves.

The term “Nephilim” translated “giants” in the KJV does not mean that the individuals were large in size. It’s interesting that elsewhere in scripture, the same word is not used to signify a person large in size. Instead, the word “rapha / rephaim” was used. So who, or what, are the “Nephilim”?

This Hebrew word comes from a root which deals with the word “fall” in a great number of applications. The word can also mean bully or tyrant. Thus, the offspring of these unholy unions may have produced “fallen” human beings who were disconnected from the family of heaven through their corrupt associations with their mothers (of Cain’s lineage) and hence they became tyrants!

Gen 6:4 There were [Nephilim (tyrants)] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The picture seems to be a lot clearer now. The unholy marriages produced wicked offspring. A union between two godly spouses would have produced godly offspring which would have encouraged spiritual growth. The descendants of Cain were corrupting and making spiritual growth impossible. If this was true back then, what would happen in the church today if everyone, or the vast majority, married people who were unbelievers, atheists, or pagans?

The story of the flood is a sobering wakeup call that physical attraction should not be the first criterion for choosing a life partner. While the rest of the world was destroyed, only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of God. This could suggest that Noah was not the product of a “son of God / daughter of man” relationship and neither were his children. However, we can’t verify this because Noah’s mother is not revealed. We also don’t know much about Noah’s wife. Ham’s actions, as well as Noah’s drinking, after the flood suggest that the corrupt influence of the antediluvian world had its effects even on those who were saved onboard the ark. We simply don’t know if Noah or his children were a byproduct of these unequally yoked marriages. However, the fact that Noah finds favor with God suggests he must have done something right! Since this would be unlikely if he married an unbeliever or was born of an unequally yoked marriage, it can be assumed that Noah was probably a pure descendant of Seth and not Cain.

The sons and daughters of man were wiped out while only those who believed in God, enough to get on board the ark, were saved. Thus, salvation was given to those with faith rather than the children of unbelief. Everyone was given opportunity to get onboard the ark, regardless of their ancestry. However, only one family possessed the faith to do so—Noah’s family.

There are different ways to look at this. If Noah was not a crossbreed of Sethite and Cainite lineage, only he remained untainted through avoiding the unequal marriages while everybody else did what they wanted to do in fulfillment of their sexual gratifications. The other possibility is that Noah wasn’t exempt from this crossbreeding but somehow managed to maintain a level of faithfulness. This might help to understand some aspects of the messianic terminology used to depict Jesus as “Son of God” and “Son of Man”. Jesus, in His humanity, could redeem the sons of God and restore Adam’s children to the image of God. Jesus, as a “Son of Man”, could also take repentant sinners who were in bondage to sin, through their service to the devil, and redeem them: making them sons of God through repentance. The two messianic terms could reflect differing aspects of the Savior’s mission to save humanity.

However, there doesn’t seem to be much conclusive evidence, that I’ve found so far, that would indicate that the distinct bloodlines of the “sons of God” and “sons of man” were directly related to with Jesus’ messianic titles other than to suggest that Jesus is the second Adam. Secondly, a full analysis of those messianic titles is not within the scope of this study.

What is clear, however, is that the interfaith marriages corrupted humanity within a short space of time and made certain destruction eminent. Today, we not only need to be careful of interfaith marriages, but also compromising ideas and Biblical principles for “favor-marriages” with the secular world. The flood story makes clear that not everything is to be united: some separations—like that of light and darkness—are intended. This suggests that believers should not compromise their faith, but remain at enmity with the world. Noah’s faith allowed him and his family to survive the coming catastrophe while the rest of the world perished. Who will survive the coming catastrophe in our time?

While Cain’s descendants seem to have been wiped out by the flood, Satan is not without offspring. Since one is the child of whom they obey, all who rebel against God’s commandments are children of the wicked one. Thus, the contention of Genesis 3:15 still exists today. Satan has his offspring—those who perform the lusts of the devil. The woman’s offspring, the sons of God, are those who live by faith and claim God’s promises. The contention between these groups was seen as early as Cain and Abel. However, this contention has spread throughout history, down to today. In fact, the final crisis in the last days is between those with the Mark of the Beast and those with the Seal of God. Those having the Seal of God are the sons of God because they have received Jesus (John 1:12). Those having the Mark of the Beast are the children of Satan because they obey the lusts of their father the devil (John 8:44).

It’s also interesting to note that God set a mark upon Cain. Those at the end of time who do not have the Seal of God, will have the mark of the Beast. They, like Cain, will offer unacceptable worship before God, and this worship will be rejected because they don’t do it by faith. Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not “do well” and thus sin was “lying at the door”. In the last days men will claim to worship God on the exterior but because they don’t “do well” their offering of worship will be rejected. This is because they compromise truth in order to worship God as they choose rather than rendering the worship that God has chosen.

While God expects enmity between these two groups, it’s interesting that there are many who seek to bridge the divide between them. This is often accomplished through compromise of faith in order to not appear distinct or peculiar. (1 Peter 2:9) Through watering down truth, we blur the lines of distinction and make the enmity less pronounced. In some churches the customs, traditions, and philosophies of the world are allowed to instruct more so than the Bible. Furthermore, through marriages with those who do not share belief in godly-Biblical principles, unequally yoked marriages weaken the foundation of the church. This is because to get along with a spouse that out-right rejects certain principles, one must compromise. It becomes harder and harder to preach on certain topics that are not “politically-correct” or may be offensive to certain groups.

In conclusion, in Genesis 6:1, the sons of God which married the daughters of men represented the lineage of Seth intermarrying with the female descendants of Cain. These marriages caused the corruption of mankind through the sinful influences of the ungodly women. In a short space of time, all of humanity became corrupt making it necessary to destroy the earth. The evidence of the distinctive genealogical records, the fact that God and the angels do not procreate, the contextual evidence of several passages, and the combined weight of other scriptures strongly rules in favor that both groups mentioned were human—not angelic beings.

These facts also proclaim a message of warning for our time as the controversy between good and evil continues. We should not place unity where God intends to place enmity. God is adamant that such unions “will” result in spiritual decline.

Much of the misinformation about the Nephilim being supernatural beings stems from Jewish fables, myths, and the Septuagint’s rendering of Nephilim as “γιγαντες”. However, Adam Clark asserts the following:

“Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.” (Clark)[4]

This demonstrates that the term doesn’t have anything to do with giants. The evidence suggests that they were fallen in moral character. We should be careful in accepting Jewish traditions and allowing them to be fused with our interpretations of scripture.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

[4] Clark, Adam http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/genesis/6.htm 02-02-2016