Genesis 6 introduces us to many problems. We are about to hear the story of a global flood sent by God as judgment for the wickedness He saw on earth. In these transition paragraphs from the genealogy of Seth in Book 2 (starting in Genesis 5:1) to the building of the ark by Noah in Book 3 (starting in Genesis 6:9), we learn about the evil that caused God to destroy all of humanity except one family. There were a lot of humans who died because there were a lot of humans; man was multiplying on the face of the land (verse 1). As he multiplied, so did the problems. So have the problems of interpretation multiplied as we try to understand who is doing what, especially in verses 1-4.

This passage reveals depravity of mythic proportions. Know that "myth" does not necessarily mean "make-believe." Originally a myth was a traditional story, usually one concerning the early history of a people and/or explaining some event that typically involved supernatural beings. Of course those stories could be true or false, but fabulous stories are not always fiction. Many myths/fables are exaggerated, some are extraordinarily true. Genesis 6 is an historically unbelievable story that we believe.

God judges sin justly, that is, His punishments are not capricious and unsuitable; they fit the crime. So what sin is so wicked that He "was sorry he had made man on earth," what sins "grieved him to his heart"? Verse 5 tells the problem but verses 1-4 show what was happening. What was so bad? It has to do with the process of marriage and multiplication.

The sons of God took as wives good-looking daughters of men who bore children to them. Who are we talking about and what's the problem? There are lots of problems trying to figure out the problems.

The first problem, and the one we'll spend our time working on today, is the identify of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Moses doesn't add more details because he figured his original readers knew. We aren't them. There are three our four options, all of which have multiple problems.

The flow of the book draws the direction of this line based on the two previous dots. The last half of chapter 4 listed descendants of Cain and all of chapter 5 listed descendants of Seth. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters (5:4), but Moses selected these two sons as representatives of the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Two cultures, two world-views come from these two sons, one of self-sufficiency and the other of prayerful communion with God. As their genealogies show, both groups multiplied and now they are mixing in their multiplication.

"Sons of God" is a description used for God's people in a couple Old Testament verses (such as Psalm 29:1) and could even be used to describe an elect group though not every individual within the group was chosen (for example, Israel). The "daughters of man" then, would be ladies like Lamech married, beautiful but proud women who had no desire to worship God, like gold rings in a swine snouts (Proverbs 11:22). Later in the OT we do see explicit prohibitions to Israel against taking foreign wives due to the tendency of those wives to turn the hearts of their husbands away from the true God.

However, this understanding requires that "man" in verse 1 refers to humanity and "man" in verse 2 refers to Cainites. "When man (that is, mankind) multiplied...the sons of God (that is, Seth's seed) saw that the daughters of man (now referring to Cain's ladies) were attractive." If that was the intention, that would have been an easier way to say it and not make "man" mean two different things.

Additionally, we have no record of the Lord requiring Seth's offspring to only marry Seth's offspring. Would it have been allowable for Seth's offspring to marry outside of Seth's line as long as it wasn't in Cain's line? Are we prepared to say that "every intention of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually" (6:5) was illustrated by marrying from the wrong family? It's not fornication or rape according to verse 2, it's taking wives. God destroyed every breathing creature not for polygamy or pedophilia or homosexuality but for too many unequally yoked marriages that produced offspring?

Besides, based on Cain and Seth's lines in Genesis 4 and 5, doesn't "daughters" fit better with Seth's people since nine generations up to Noah explicitly mention daughters but no daughters are mentioned among Cain's offspring?

Speaking of offspring, whether or not the Nephilim are part of the offspring, the "mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" (verse 4) are the fruit of these marriages. What is it about young men from believing families marrying women of unbelieving families that constantly produced big, battle heroes? Was there something in their water?

In Psalm 82 the powerful are addressed, "you are gods, sons of the Most High" (verse 6 and see verse 7 also). The idea of "sons of God" applies to leaders or princes over a people group as a term acknowledging God's sovereignty in appointing rulers, a divine right. The same idea applied proleptically to David in Psalm 2; as King of Israel he was God's son in a way that represented God's only Son. In Genesis 6, the problem would be the abuse of power, men with might taking any of the women that they wanted for their royal harem.

Those who follow this interpretation assume that verse 2 is a reference to polygamy. The women are taken as wives, not concubines, though isn't clear that a son of God took many daughters of man anyway.

It also has nothing to do with the flow of the book. We've read nothing about kings in either Cain or Seth's line. Cain built a city and called it after the name of his son (4:17), but that doesn't mean that he ruled it like a tyrant. These kinds of men may have existed, but were there so many of these kings that the whole earth should be flooded?

Other than a couple cross-references where the title applies to kings, maybe the best argument from the Genesis 6 context belongs with "the mighty men of renown." A ruler usually obtained his rule due to his abilities as a warrior and, as it was for a long time, one's abilities as a warrior had much to do with one's physical size and strength. These lusty men may have had big kids.

Initially it may seem that this option, demons, does not fit the flow of Genesis any better than the kings option. Moses hasn't explicitly told us about angels anywhere in the first five chapters. He did, though, tell us about a talking serpent, a serpent who tried to persuade man to become something greater than a man. Later in God's revelation we do learn that he is more than a serpent. Also, the serpent offered a way for the man and woman to become like God.

The description "sons of God" is used about angels in various parts of the OT, most notably in the early chapters of Job when the sons of God were presenting themselves before God (Job 1:6; 2:1). This isn't referring to a temple on earth with men offering worship. The sons of God presented themselves before the LORD and Satan also came among them. Job was probably a near contemporary of Abram, somwhere around 10 generations after the flood. Based only on the phrase "sons of God" these beings are best understood to be angels. Even the Greek translation of Genesis for Genesis 6:2 begins with angeloi tou theou, "the angels of God."

Angels also explain the contrast between man multiplying including daughters and creatures other than man seeing that daughters of man were beautiful. Otherwise, humans had kids and some of the boys thought that some of the girls were really pretty. Since angels are of a different kind, this could explain significance of the phrase daughters of man.

It also could explain the Nephilim, or at least the mighty men. These half-breeds, if that's what they were, could have been exceptionally large and strong.

Though outside of the Genesis account, a couple New Testament passages seem to connect disobedient angels with events around the flood.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4–5)

God judged angels, the ancient world, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (verse 6), "especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority" (verse 10).

Jude also appears to connect the same.

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6–7)

The angels who left their proper dwelling didn't leave God's service in heaven, they left their spiritual nature just as Sodom and Gomorrah "which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire" (verse 7). When did angels do this? Genesis 6 might describe such a story.

However, Jesus said that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Matthew 22:30). Angels do not procreate; their number is fixed. But does that mean that they have no way of reproducing at all or no way of reproducing with other angels? Angels are not male and female, but again, does that mean that angels have no sexual abilities? If not, why do Peter and Jude connect angels with unnatural desire? Also, Jesus said that the angels of God in heaven neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Perhaps that doesn't preclude fallen angels who've been cast out from heaven.

There are other arguments against "sons of God" being fallen angels. If Genesis describes angels marrying women, why is humanity judged instead of humanity and angels? It doesn't seem just. However, 1) why does God destroy the birds, creeping things, and animals? God told Noah to bring two of each kind onto the ark, but other breathing things die that were not personally guilty. 2) It is true that the angels saw the daughters and took initiative, "they took as wives any they chose." But "wives" certainly allows for the acceptance of the daughters and even the arrangement of the fathers. The marriages might have been by force, but "any" doesn't necessarily mean against their will. Men and women could have been tempted to want something more, some sort of immortality similar to what the serpent promised Eve. And 3) we don't know that the angels weren't punished. Peter and Jude refer to gloomy darkness and chains until judgment. Why are they locked up? What did they do? Why until the final judgement? So that they cannot take wives again?

A final problem may connect with the Nephilim. If the Nephilim are part of this angel-human race, along with the mighty men, then how were there more Nephilim after the flood, "also afterward" (verse 4) and since the Hebrews encountered Nephilim when returning to take the Promised Land (Numbers 13:33)?

This option is a hybrid that has the benefit of procreation between two humans. It seems less jarring to our supernatural squeamishness. However, if it is Sethites, those in the worshipping line, then how did it happen that they sought the help of demons? We still are adding angels into the story and we don't have any examples of demon-possessed men being given a title such as "son of God." This option still gives us all the problems of Sethites or kings and makes problematic assumptions.

John Calvin called it pure absurdity for anyone to think that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 could be fallen angels.

That ancient figment, concerning the intercourse of angels with women, is abundantly refuted by its own absurdity; and it is surprising that learned men should formerly have been fascinated by ravings so gross and prodigious. (238)

However, most early Jewish interpreters, including the LXX translation of angelos, along with Peter and Jude's comments, along with Philo, Josephus, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, understood option 3 above as the best option. That means that there have been many absurd readers throughout church history, and I include myself in that group.

The fallen angel interpretation may also explain where some of the pagan stories came from. The idea that gods mated or married mortals is well-known as far back as The Epic of Gilgamesh around Abram's time which also included a flood account. Later world-origin stories and records such as The Illiad demonstrated that entire cultures believed in the mix of immortals and mankind. Because people believe it doesn't make it true, but where did the fiction come from? Could it be exaggerated from this true story?

The title of this message is "Multiplication Problems" and I said that there were difficulties knowing exactly who is doing what wrong that caused a kind of punishment that God promised never to send again. It seems to me that depravity of such mythic proportions is best explained by fallen angels marrying and multiplying with the daughters of men rather than attributing the depths of depravity to Seth's people marrying Cain's people.

There is more to consider, including a few additional problems. Things are bad and only by God's grace to and through Noah were any spared.