Who are the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6?

Who are the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6?

The Word of God is true and everything described in it refers to real events. Yet even faithful Bible commentators differ on numerous passages of text. Genesis 6 is one such text about which there are quite a number of different opinions. While I accept that believers differ from each other and also may differ, it is not because the Word of God has more than one meaning in a specific passage of text. The differences in interpretation do not come as a result of a defect in the Word of God, but in our failure to understand it correctly. The Word of God is always true and clear, but we, as fallen people, fall short in our understanding of it, especially in certain so-called 'difficult' passages of text. 

This article is not an attempt to bring an end to the debate about this text. It is very possible for someone to come to a different conclusion from me through serious study of the Scriptures. But if they differ it must be as a result of serious study of the Scriptures on this matter. Leaving this question open to 'my personal opinion', or 'traditional views', or 'the popular views' does not make you a good Bible student. I would encourage you to investigate this matter and draw your own conclusion based on proper study.

 

1. Understanding the context

For the understanding of any passage, it is first important to have a correct understand of the context in which the passage is placed. What is the reason why what is said was said? What is the argument being made that gave rise to the particular statement? This understanding of the context begins within the passage itself, but it also extends to what is discussed before or after the specific passage. 

a.Immediate context

The verses we are examining specifically is Genesis 6:1-2 which says "When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose." 

-    Intercourse

There is little doubt that 'the sons of God' did not took the 'daughters of men' as their wives to enter into a platonic relationship, but they had intercourse with them. Verse 4 clearly says 'when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.’ 

-    Giants

Verse 4 begins with the statement 'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.' These 'giants' are further described as ‘the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown' in the verse. The Hebrew word that is translated into English as 'giant' is the word nephiyl. It comes from the Hebrew word for 'fall' and actually means 'those who overwhelm people with fear' or 'people fall before them out of fear'. The further description in the verse that they are ‘the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown' corresponds to this description. 

b.Wider immediate context

-    Events before our passage

If we start with the events of Genesis 3 and follow the course from there to Genesis 6, we find the following. In Genesis 3 we find the fall. In Genesis 4 we find the story of Cain and Abel where Cain kills Abel and Seth is later born to Adam and Eve as a new offspring. Genesis 5 gives us the Genealogy from Adam to Noah, through Seth.

-    Events after our passage

After the events of our text comes the global flood in the days of Noah. During this flood, all of humanity was wiped out with the exception of Noah and his family who are descendants of Adam through Seth. 

c. The Scriptural use of words

-    Sons of God

The description 'sons of God' is seen by most as a description given only to angels. This especially because in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 it is used to refer to the angels. Job is seen as one of the oldest Bible books because Job is believed to have lived before the days of the flood. 

Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ is also called the 'Son of God' and He was certainly not an angel. Even more striking is that believers are also called the 'sons of God' (Matt. 5:9, Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26). The description 'sons of God' cannot therefore be seen as a biological or ontological description, but it appears to be related to what a person's (Christ, angels or people's) relationship with God is. While angels are described in this way on occasion, believers and Christ himself are also described in this way. 

-    Fallen angels

Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 refer to the fact that, after the resurrection from the dead, we will not marry, but will be like angels. Here Jesus answers a question that specifically deals with marriage from which children are conceived. 

Jude 1:6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4-7 may refer to the events described in Genesis 6 when it speaks of fallen angels, in the old world, before the global flood. The reference there to Sodom and Gomorrah seems to show that these angels' sin was sexual in nature. 

Fallen angels, or Satan and his demons, are never called the 'sons of God'. It is very striking that Satan is not specifically mentioned as one of the 'sons of God' in Job 1:6. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.”

 

2. Sons of God refers to angels

The view that the 'sons of God' refers to angels is the most common explanation of this text. However, this does not mean that it is without its problems. There are numerous reasons why this view is not necessarily the best explanation for this passage. 

a.The immediate context

-    Intercourse

Fundamental to the understanding that this refers to angels, is that angels must then be able to have intercourse, and specifically intercourse with someone from another species (namely humans) and can produce children. Interbreeding between different species is impossible and there is no reasonable answer to the contrary. 

Some reckon that the angels came in the form of men, but even if this is so, they would still not be able to produce children with them. Others say that these fallen angels (demons) possessed human men and they had intercourse with women, and while they would then be able to produce children they would not be the children of angels then, but the children of men. 

-    Giants

The word 'nephilim' does not specifically mean 'giant' and while in some cases 'giant' may be an acceptable explanation for them 'striking fear on people', it is not the only explanation. Unfortunately, most people are misled by the translators who took liberties with the translation which does not necessarily ensure accuracy. It is very possible that they 'struck fear upon men', for many other reasons than that they were tall in stature. The fact that the further description calls them 'mighty men who were of old, the men of renown’ again does not state that they were large in stature, but simply that they drove people to fear. There may have been several reasons for this, which are not clear from the context. 

It is also not absolutely clear that these Nephilim came about as a result of intercourse between the sons of God and the daughters of men. Verse 4 simply says that the Nephilim existed in the days when the sons of God went in with the daughters of men and bore children. It does not say that the children that were born to these Nephilim, although that could certainly be a valid statement. 

b.Wider immediate context

-    Events before the passage

The preceding passages place a strong emphasis on the descendants of Cain who were generally evil and the descendants of Seth who were generally righteous. There is no reference to angels in any part of the context and it would therefore be strange if it referred to angels here.

-    Events after the passage

The global flood was primarily for the purpose of wiping out the human race. Clearly, God punished the sins of man. If the sons of God do not refer to men, then it leaves the question why the punishment of the people occurred immediately after they are mentioned, in the context, there is no punishment for the angels who, according to this view, then initiated this evil. 

c. The Scriptural use of words

-    Sons of God

As already mentioned, the term 'sons of God' is not used exclusively for angels, but for Christ and in particular for believers as well. While Job may have lived and wrote at a similar time to these events, it does not mean that the term 'sons of God' was used exclusively for angels even during that time. Even Adam is called the son of God (Luke 3:38) and as a man made in the likeness of God, such a description is just as appropriate for him and his descendants.

-    Fallen angels

Fallen angels are not called the sons of God anywhere in Scripture. Furthermore, while it is true that Jude and 2 Peter refer to fallen angels, from the past, who are kept in custody for great punishment, the way in which those who holds that this refers to those angels is not acceptable. Genesis 6 is used to explain Judas and 2 Peter's fallen angels' sin and then Judas and 2 Peter is used to explain Genesis 6's sons of God. That is arguing in a circle! You cannot use one thing to explain another thing and then use that explained thing to explain your original statement.

 

3. The sons of God refer to the descendants of Seth

While this view is not without its challenges, based on good hermeneutics it seems to be the most logical explanation. 

a. The immediate context

-    Intercourse

It is entirely possible that the sons of Seth could have had intercourse with the daughters of Cain. The believer must not be yoked (married) with an unbeliever. This was not only true in the time of the New Testament (2 Cor. 6:14 etc.), but also in the times of the Old Testament (Ex. 34:16; Lev. 19:19; Deut. 7: 2-3 etc.) The descendants of Seth were known as people who served God (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), and the descendants of Cain were known for evil (Gen. 4:19; 23-24)

-    Giants

It is very possible that these Nephilim were the children born from the union between the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain as the word does not necessarily mean 'giants'. The further description that they were 'mighty men who were of old, the men of renown', could also describe the fact that they were extremely evil and well known for it. This could also be an acceptable explanation for Nephilim. 

b.Wider immediate context

- Events before the passage

If it refers to the descendants of Seth who took women from the descendants of Cain, it comfortably flows from the preceding events, where the evil of Cain and his descendants (Gen. 4) and the righteousness of Seth's descendants (Gen. 5) are seen. If Seth's offspring had married Cain's offspring, the children would very possibly have chosen the path of evil and thus become 'Nephilim!'

-    Events after the passage

The absence of the punishment on angels and the fact that the global flood was specifically to wipe out all flesh seems to show that the sin was amongst mankind and that angels are not meant here. 

c. The Scriptural use of words

-    Sons of God

To call believers the sons of God is common usage in the Scriptures and from the preceding context we can see that Seth's descendants were largely people who served and feared the Lord, while Cain's descendants, on the contrary, were known for disobedience and evil. To therefore call the descendants of Seth the sons of God, as the Word indeed calls believers, makes sense. From his descendants were those who called on the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:26), walked with God (Gen. 5:24) and found favour in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 6:8)

-    Fallen angels

We cannot escape the idea that fallen angels are never called the sons of God. Indeed they were once, before they fell, sons of God, but to call them so after they fell into sin would make no sense at all. 

It is also clear that the question Jesus asks in Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 was specifically about several brothers who all married one woman in order to raise children with her. So if Jesus answers, that in the afterlife we ​​will be like angels who do not marry, it is only logical that his answer is specifically stating that we will no longer have sexual intercourse then, like the angels. The view that angels are sexless and do not reproduce is therefore a sensible view from that passage.

 

Conclusion:

While the explanation of this text is certainly not a cross to die on and believers may come to a different conclusion after careful study of the texts, it is my opinion that the 'sons of God' refers to the offspring of Seth, and the daughters of men refer to the offspring of Cain. I realize that this view also has its challenges, but good hermeneutics (Scripture study) inclines me to believe that this view is the most logical and therefore most likely explanation for the passage. 

It would also correspond to a very important principle that is still applicable for believers: Not to enter into marriage with unbelievers, because it does not honour God. There are a legion of examples from which we can see the terrible consequences of mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers. 

Rev. Leon Harmse

Pastor of Sunwardpark Baptist Church

Wie is die ‘seuns van God’ in Genesis 6?

Wie is die ‘seuns van God’ in Genesis 6?

 

Die Woord van God is waar en alles wat daarin beskryf word verwys na ware gebeure.  Tog verskil selfs getroue Bybelverklaarders van mekaar oor talle teksgedeeltes.  Genesis 6 is een so teks waar daar ‘n hele aantal verskillende opinies oor bestaan.  Terwyl ek aanvaar dat gelowiges van mekaar verskil en ook mag verskil, is dit nie omdat die Woord van God meer as een betekenis in ‘n spesifieke teksgedeelte het nie.  Die verskille in interpretasie kom nie asgevolg van ‘n gebrek in die Woord van God nie, maar in ons gebrek om dit korrek te verstaan.  Die Woord van God is altyd waar en duidelik, maar ons, as gevalle mense, skiet kort in ons begrip daarvan, veral in sekere sogenaamde ‘moeilike’ teksgedeeltes. 

Hierdie skrywe is nie ‘n pooging om ‘n einde aan die debat oor hierdie teks te bring nie.  Dit is baie moontlik vir iemand om deur ernstige studie van die Skrif tot ‘n ander konklusie te kom as ek.  Tog is die vraag dan dat ernstige studie uit die Skrif oor hierdie saak gemaak sal word.  Om hierdie vraag oop te los vir ‘my persoonlike opinie’, of ‘tradisionele sienings’, of ‘die populêre sienings’ maak nie van jou ‘n goeie Bybel-student nie.  Ek sou jou aanmoedig om hierdie saak te ondersoek en opgrond van behoorlike studie jou gevolgtrekking te maak. 

 

1. Verstaan van die konteks

Vir die verstaan van enige teksgedeelte is dit eers belangrik om die konteks waarin die teksgedeelte geplaas is korrek te verstaan.  Wat is die rede waarom dit wat gesê word gesê is.  Wat is die argument wat gevoer word wat aanleiding gegee het tot die bepaalde stelling.  Hierdie verstaan van die konteks begin binne in die teksgedeelte self, maar dit brei ook uit na dit wat voor of na die spesifieke teksgedeelte bespreek word. 

a.Onmiddelike konteks

Die teksvers wat ons ondersoek is spesifiek Genesis 6:1-2 wat sê “Toe die mense op die aarde begin vermeerder en daar vir hulle dogters gebore is, sien die seuns van God dat die dogters van die mense mooi was, en hulle het vir hulle as vroue geneem almal wat hulle verkies het.”  

-    Geslaggemeenskap

Daar is min twyfel oor die feit dat ‘die seuns van God’ nie net die ‘dogters van mense’ vir hulle as vrouens geneem het om meë in ‘n platoniese verhouding te tree nie, maar hulle het gemeenskap met hulle gehad.  Vers 4 sê duidelik ‘toe die seuns van God by die dogters van die mense ingegaan en die vir hulle kinders gebaar het’.  

-    Reuse

Vers 4 begin met die stelling ‘In die dae was die reuse op die aarde, en ook daarna.’  Hierdie ‘reuse’ word verder beskryf as ‘die geweldiges uit die ou tyd, die manne van naam’ in die vers.  Die Hebreëuse woord wat in Afrikaans as ‘reuse’ vertaal word is die woord n^ephiyl.  Dit is afkomstig van die Hebreëuse woord vir ‘val’ en beteken eintlik ‘hulle wat mense oorval met vrees’ of ‘mense val voor hulle uit vrees’. En die verdere beskrywing in die vers dat hulle ‘die geweldiges uit die ou tyd, die mense van naam’ kom met hierdie beskrywing ooreen. 

b.Weier onmiddelike konteks

-    Gebeure voor ons teks

As ons begin by die gebeure van Genesis 3 en van daar die verloop volg tot by Genesis 6, vind ons die volgende.  In Genesis 3 vind ons die sondeval.  In Genesis 4 vind ons die verhaal van Kain en Abel waar Kain Abel vermoor en Set later vir Adam en Eva gebore word as ‘n nuwe nasaad.  Genesis 5 gee aan ons die Geslagregister van Adam tot by Noag, deur Set. 

-    Gebeure na ons teks

Na die gebeure van ons teks kom die wêreldwye vloed in die dae van Noag.  Tydens hierdie vloed is die hele mensdom uitgewis met die uitsondering van Noag en sy gesin wat afstammelinge van Adam deur Set is. 

c. Die Skriftuurlike gebruik van woorde

-    Seuns van God

Die beskrywing ‘seuns van God’ word deur meeste gesien as ‘n beskrywing wat slegs vir engele gegee word.  Dit veral omdat Job 1:6 en Job 2:1 gebruik word om te verwys na die engele.  Job word gesien as een van die oudste Bybelboeke omdat Job, volgens mening, voor die dae van die vloed geleef het.  

Natuurlik word die Here Jesus Christus ook die ‘Seun van God’ genoem en Hy was verseker nie ‘n engel nie.  Nog meer opvallende is dat gelowiges ook die ‘seuns van God’ genoem word (Matt. 5:9, Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26).  Die beskrywing ‘seuns van God’ kan daarom nie as ‘n biologiese of ontologiese beskrywing gesien word nie, maar dit blyk om verband te hou met wat ‘n persoon (Christus, engele of mense) se verhouding met God is.  Terwyl engele by geleentheid so beskryf word, word gelowiges en Christus self ook so beskryf.   

-  Gevalle engele

Mattheus 22:30 en Markus 12:25 verwys daarna dat ons, na die opstanding uit die dode, nie sal trou nie, maar soos engele sal wees.  Jesus antwoord hier ‘n vraag wat juis handel oor huwelik waaruit kinders verwek word.

Judas 1:6-7 en 2 Petrus 2:4-7 verwys moontlik na die gebeure wat in Genesis 6 beskryf word wanneer dit praat van engele wat, in die ou wêreld, voor die wêreldvloed geval het.  Die verwysing daar na Sodom en Gomorra blyk om te toon dat hierdie engele se sonde seksueel van aard was. 

Gevalle engele, of dan Satan en sy demone, word nooit die ‘seuns van God’ genoem nie.  Dit is baie opvallend dat Satan spesifiek nie een van die ‘seuns van God’ genoem word in Job 1:6 nie.  “En op ‘n dag toe die seuns van God kom om hulle voor die HERE te stel, het die Satan ook onder hulle gekom.”

 

2. Seuns van God verwys na engele

Die siening dat die ‘seuns van God’ na engele verwys is die mees algemene verklaring van hierdie teks.  Dit beteken egter nie dat dit sonder sy probleme is nie. Daar is talle redes waarom hierdie siening nie noodwendig die beste verklaring vir hierdie teksgedeelte is nie. 

a.Die onmiddelike konteks

-    Geslaggemeenskap

Fundamenteel tot die verstaan dat dit hier na engele verwys is die feit dat engele in staat moet wees om gemeenskap te kan hê, en dat gemeenskap met iemand uit ‘n ander spesies (naamlike mense) kinders kan voortbring.  Voortplanting tussen verskillende spesies is onmoontlik en daar is geen redelike antwoord tot die teendeel nie. 

Sommige reken dat die engele in die vorm van mense gekom het, maar steeds sou dit nie die voortbring van kinders beteken nie.  Ander sê weer dat hierdie gevalle engele (demone) menslike mans beset het en toe gemeenskap met vrouens gehad het, en terwyl dit wel kinders sou verwek sou dit dan nie die kinders van engele wees nie, maar van mense. 

-    Reuse

Die woord ‘nefilim’ beteken nie spesifiek ‘reus’ nie en terwyl ‘reus’ in sommige gevalle ‘n aanvaarbare verduideliking kan wees vir hulle wat ‘vrees op mense laat val’, is dit nie die enigste verduideliking nie.  Ongelukkig word meeste mense hier verlei deur die vertalers wat in die geval vryhede met die vertaling geneem het wat nie noodwendig akkuraatheid verseker nie.  Dit is baie moontlik dat hulle ‘vrees op mense laat val’ het, vir talle ander redes as dat hulle groot in postuur was.  Die feit dat die verdere beskrywing wat hulle ‘geweldiges uit die ou tyd, die manne van naam’ noem bevestig weereens nie dat hulle groot van postuur was nie, maar bloot dat hulle mense tot vrees gedryf het.  Daar kan verskeie redes daarvoor gewees het, wat nie duidelik is uit die konteks nie. 

Dit is ook verder nie absoluut duidelik dat hierdie Nefilim die gevolg van gemeenskap tussen die seuns van God en die dogters van mense was nie. Vers 4 sê bloot dat die Nefilim in die dae bestaan het toe die seuns van God by die dogters van mense ingegaan het en kinders gebaar het nie.  Dit sê nie dat die kinders wat gebaar is hierdie Nefilim was nie, alhoewel dit sekerlik ‘n geldige verklaring kan wees. 

b.Weier onmiddelike konteks

-    Gebeure voor die teks

Die voorafgaande gedeeltes plaas ‘n sterk klem op die nageslagte van Kain wat oor die algemeen boos was en die nageslag van Set wat oor die algemeen regverdig was.  Daar is geen verwysing na engele in enige deel van die konteks nie en dit sal daarom vreemd wees as dit hier na engele verwys

-    Gebeure na die teks

Die wêreldvloed was primêr met die doel om die nageslag van mense uit te wis.  Duidelik straf God die sonde van die mens.  As die seuns van God nie verwys na mense nie, dan laat dit die vraag waarom die straf van die mense hierna uitgespel word terwyl daar, in die konteks, geen straf vir die engele is wat hierdie boosheid geinisieer het nie. 

c. Die Skriftuurlike gebruik van woorde

-    Seuns van God

Soos reeds genoem word die term ‘seuns van God’ nie ekskusief vir engele gebruik nie, maar vir Christus en in besonder vir gelowiges ook.  Terwyl dit so is dat Job moontlik in hierdie selfde tyd geleef en geskryf het, bepaal dit nie dat term ‘seuns van God’ selfs in daardie tyd eksklusief vir engele gebruik is nie.  Selfs Adam word die seun van God (Luk. 3:38) genoem en as mens gemaak in die gelykenis van God, is so ‘n beskrywing vir hom en sy nageslag net so toepaslik.

-    Gevalle engele

Gevalle engele word nêrens in die Skrif die seuns van God genoem nie.  Verder, terwyl dit waar is dat Judas en 2 Petrus na gevalle engele verwys, uit die voortyd, wat in bewaring gehou word vir groter straf, is die manier waarop hierdie argument gebruik word nie aanvaarbaar nie.  Genesis 6 word gebruik om Judas en 2 Petrus se gevalle engele se sonde te verklaar en dat word Judas en 2 Petrus gebruik om Genesis 6 se seuns van God te verklaar.  Dit is om ‘n ‘n sirkel te redeneer! Jy kan nie een ding gebruik om ‘n ander ding te verklaar en dan daardie verklaarde ding gebruik om jou oorsponklike stelling te verklaar nie.

 

3. Die seuns van God verwys na die nageslag van Set

Terwyl hierdie siening nie sonder sy uitdagings is nie, blyk dit opgrond van goeie hermenutiek om die mees logiese verklaring te wees.  

a.Die onmiddelike konteks

-    Geslaggemeenskap

Dit is heeltemal moontlik dat die seuns van Set, gemeenskap met die dogters van Kain kon gehad het.  Die gelowige moenie met ‘n ongelowige gejuk (getroud) wees nie.  Dit was nie net waar in die tyd van die Nuwe Testament (2 Kor. 6:14 ens.) nie, maar ook in die tye van die Ou Testament (Eks. 34:16; Lev. 19:19; Deut. 7:2-3 ens.)  Die nageslag van Set was bekend as mense wat God gedien het (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), en die nageslag van Kain was bekend vir boosheid (Gen. 4:19; 23-24)

-    Reuse

Dit is baie moontlik dat hierdie Nefilim die kinders was wat verwek is uit die gemeenskap tussen die seuns van Set en die dogters van Kain aangesien die woord nie noodwendig ‘reuse’ beteken nie.  Die verdere beskrywing dat hulle ‘geweldiges uit die ou tyd, en manne van naam’ was, kan ook ‘n beskrywing wees dat hulle geweldig boos was en dat hulle daarvoor bekend was.  Dit sou ook ‘n aanvaarbare verklaring vir Nefilim kon wees. 

b.Weier onmiddelike konteks

-    Gebeure voor die teks

Die verklaring dat dit verwys na die nageslag van Set wat vroue uit die nageslag van Kain geneem het vloei gemaklik vanuit die voorafgaande gebeure waar ons juis die boosheid van Kain en sy nageslag (Gen. 4) en die regverdigheid van Set se nageslag (Gen. 5) gesien het.  Indien Set se nageslag met Kain se nageslag getrou het, sou die kinders baie moontlik die weg van boosheid gekies het en sodoende selfs ‘Nefilim!’ gewees het.

-    Gebeure na die teks

Die afwessigheid van die straf op engele en die feit dat die wêreldvloed spesifiek was om alle vlees uit te wis, blyk om te toon dat die sonde onder die mensdom was en dat engele nie hier bedoel word nie.

c. Die Skriftuurlike gebruik van woorde

-    Seuns van God

Om gelowiges die seuns van God te noem is algemene gebruik in die Skrif en vanuit die voorafgaande konteks kan ons sien dat Set se nageslag grootliks mense was wat die Here gedien en gevrees het, terwyl Kain se nageslag in teendeel bekend was vir ongehoorsaamheid en boosheid.  Om daarom die nageslag van Set die seuns van God te noem, soos die Woord inderdaad gelowiges noem, maak sin.  Uit sy nageslag was die wat die Naam van die Here aangeroep het (Gen. 4:26), gewandel met God (Gen. 5:24) en het guns in die oë van die Here gevind (Gen. 6:8)

-    Gevalle engele

Ons kan nie wegkom van die gedagte dat gevalle engele nooit die seuns van God genoem word nie.  Inderdaad was hulle eens, voor hulle geval het, seuns van God, maar om hulle so te noem nadat hulle in sonde geval het sou geensins sin maak nie.  

Dit is ook duidelik dat die vraag wat Jesus in Mattheus 22:30 en Markus 12:25 gevra het spesifiek gegaan het oor verskeie broers wat almal met een vrou getrou het om kinders by haar op te wek.  As Jesus dus antwoord dat ons in die hiernamaals soos engele sal wees wat nie trou nie, is dit net logies dat sy antwoord spesifiek is dat ons nie geslaggemeenskap sal hê nie, soos die engele.  Die siening dat engele geslagteloos is en nie voortplant nie is dus ‘n sinvolle siening uit daardie teks.

 

Konklusie:

Terwyl die verklaring van hierdie teks verseker nie ‘n kruis is om op te sterf nie en gelowiges na sorgvuldige studie van die tekste moontlik tot ‘n ander slotsom kan kom, is dit my mening dat die ‘seuns van God’ na die nageslag van Set verwys, en die dogters van die mense na die nageslag van Kain verwys.  Ek besef dat hierdie siening ook sy uitdagings het, maar goeie hermenutiek (Skrifstudie) neig my om te glo dat hierdie siening die mees logiese en daarom mees waarskynlike verklaring vir die teks is. 

Dit sou ook ooreenstem met ‘n baie belangrike beginsel wat steeds toepaslik is vir gelowiges: Om nie met ongelowiges in die huwelik te tree nie, want dit eer God nie.  Daar is ‘n legio van voorbeelde waarin ons die noodlottige gevolge van huwelikke tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges kan sien.  

Ds. Leon Harmse

Leraar van Sunwardpark Baptistekerk