Introduction
Genesis 6:1–4 has long provoked theological and exegetical controversy, especially concerning the identity of the "sons of God" and the "Nephilim." While some early Jewish and extra-biblical interpretations construed the passage as describing fallen angels marrying human women and producing hybrid offspring, the classical Reformed tradition has consistently rejected this view. Instead, prominent Reformed exegetes—including John Calvin, Matthew Henry, and later Dutch Reformed theologians—have identified the "sons of God" as the godly lineage of Seth and the "daughters of men" as the ungodly descendants of Cain. This essay examines this traditional Reformed interpretation, compares it with the issue of interfaith marriage addressed in Ezra’s reforms, and critiques the angelic-hybrid view as a "Jewish fable," in line with Calvin's appraisal. Furthermore, it incorporates our Lord's authoritative teaching that angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Matt. 22:30), a direct refutation of the mythological reading that sees celestial beings cohabiting with humans.
I. Genesis 6 and the Identity of the "Sons of God"
Genesis 6:1–4 recounts a troubling development prior to the flood:
"The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose" (Gen. 6:2, ESV).
The Reformed tradition interprets "sons of God" as pious men descending from the line of Seth (cf. Gen. 4:26) and "daughters of men" as irreligious women from the line of Cain. This interpretation maintains continuity with the covenantal theme of Genesis and reflects the moral and spiritual deterioration caused by intermarriage between the godly and ungodly. According to John Calvin, this intermarriage represents a breakdown of covenantal boundaries:
"By the sons of God... Moses does not mean angels, but the descendants of Seth... who being captivated by the charms of women, degenerated from the piety of their fathers" (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 6:2).
Calvin is emphatic that the passage does not describe angelic beings but godly men whose marriages to irreligious women led to widespread corruption. He considers the idea of angels marrying humans to be a "Jewish fable", unworthy of serious theological consideration:
"This is a most absurd fiction, a thing that is utterly repugnant to the Word of God... the Jews have dreamed such things, borrowing them from profane nations" (ibid., 6:1–4).
This theological judgment by Calvin is not merely a matter of rational rejection but is grounded in our Lord’s own authoritative teaching. In rebuking the Sadducees' misunderstanding of the resurrection, Jesus clearly states:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30, cf. Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36).
By affirming that angels do not participate in marriage, Christ provides definitive scriptural ground to reject the notion that angelic beings could enter into marital or sexual unions with humans. This divine declaration reinforces the Reformed understanding and further exposes the angelic-hybrid theory as theologically unsound.
II. The Nephilim as Tyrannical Men, Not Hybrids
Genesis 6:4 references the Nephilim, often translated as "giants" or "fallen ones." Rather than interpreting these as monstrous angel-human hybrids, the Reformed view sees them as violent, mighty men—likely tyrants—who arose from these unlawful unions. These men were "men of renown," not because of virtue, but due to their power and infamy. The text portrays a world increasingly characterized by violence, pride, and apostasy—conditions that provoke divine judgment.
Matthew Henry, reflecting this view, interprets the Nephilim as "giants in wickedness, not just in stature" (Commentary on Genesis 6). The term "Nephilim" does not necessitate a supernatural origin, but rather describes morally and socially catastrophic consequences of spiritual compromise.
III. Ezra’s Reforms and the Principle of Covenant Separation
The Reformed understanding of Genesis 6 gains reinforcement in the narrative of Ezra 9–10, where post-exilic Jews are confronted with the problem of intermarriage with foreign women. Ezra’s reaction is intense and decisive:
"The holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands... As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled" (Ezra 9:2–3, ESV).
Ezra's reforms required the dissolution of these marriages to preserve the integrity of the covenant community. The issue was not ethnicity but religious idolatry, as many of these foreign women led their families into syncretism and apostasy (cf. Neh. 13:23–27). The parallel with Genesis 6 is striking: covenantal compromise through ungodly unions leads to spiritual decline and divine displeasure.
This continuity in biblical theology—preserving the holiness of God's people through separation from idolatrous influences—further validates the Reformed interpretation of Genesis 6. In both cases, the central issue is fidelity to God's covenant and the dangers posed by mingling with those outside the faith.
IV. Rejection of the Angel-Hybrid View as Mythology
The ancient Jewish apocalyptic tradition—preserved in texts like 1 Enoch—depicts fallen angels (the “Watchers”) descending to earth, marrying human women, and producing monstrous offspring. This interpretation entered some early Christian circles but was explicitly rejected by the Reformers.
John Calvin dismisses this notion as mythological and doctrinally dangerous. He argues that angels are spiritual beings incapable of physical generation, and that the text itself provides no grounds for assuming a supernatural origin of the Nephilim. Calvin cautions against giving credence to "heathen delusions":
“Many have indulged themselves in foolish and really profane conjectures, as if giants were produced from the intercourse of demons with women... such trifles are beneath refutation” (Commentary on Genesis, 6:4).
This rejection is grounded not only in the created nature of angels as incorporeal beings, but also—most decisively—in the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ, who taught that angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” This scriptural statement from the lips of Christ Himself renders the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6 both exegetically and theologically untenable.
Conclusion
The Reformed interpretation of Genesis 6 situates the Nephilim narrative within the larger framework of covenantal theology. Rather than embracing speculative myths about fallen angels and hybrids, this view identifies the passage as a warning against spiritual compromise and unlawful unions between believers and unbelievers. These marriages, as in Ezra's day, threaten the holiness and distinctiveness of God's people and bring divine judgment. John Calvin’s forceful rejection of the angelic-hybrid theory as a "Jewish fable" reflects a principled commitment to biblical clarity, covenantal integrity, and theological sobriety. Moreover, Jesus' unambiguous teaching that angels do not marry decisively refutes the hybrid theory, underscoring the need for fidelity to both the text and the voice of our Lord. In an age often fascinated by sensational readings of Scripture, the Reformed tradition calls the Church back to fidelity in both doctrine and life.
Works Cited
-
Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Translated by John King. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005 (orig. pub. 1554).
-
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis to Deuteronomy. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
-
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles, 2016.
-
1 Enoch, trans. R.H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
-
Jesus Christ. Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35–36, ESV.
No comments:
Post a Comment