Were the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6:2 human or symbolic? Historical Interpretation 1. Second-Temple Jewish Literature • 1 Enoch 6–7, Jubilees 4:15-22 interpret the union as angelic beings with human women. Regardless of the angelic view, the women themselves are unquestionably human. 2. Early Church Fathers • Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian follow the angelic interpretation. Augustine, Chrysostom, and later Reformers favor the “Sethite sons of God” (godly lineage) view. Both schools treat “daughters of men” as literal human females—either of Cain’s line or humanity in general. 3. Rabbinic Sources • Genesis Rabbah 26.5, Targum Onkelos, and later Midrashim concur on literal women, though differing on the identity of the “sons of God.” No stream of historic Judaism or Christianity treats the phrase as purely metaphorical or symbolic entities. --- Contextual Considerations 1. Population Explosion (“men began to multiply”) sets a demographic backdrop of physical procreation. 2. Resulting Offspring (“Nephilim”) are described with physical traits—“mighty men… men of renown” (v. 4)—which presupposes biological mothers. 3. Divine Judgment (v. 3, 5-7) targets violence and corruption spreading through actual human flesh, not abstractions. --- New Testament Corroboration • 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6-7 link the sin of certain angels to the Flood, anchoring the episode in real history. • Jesus affirms the Flood as literal (Matthew 24:37-39). If the antecedent event is literal, so is the human component leading to it. --- Archaeological & Anthropological Observations • Flood legends on five continents (e.g., the Babylonian Atrahasis Tablet, Mesopotamian flood layers at Shuruppak and Ur, dated by argon isotope correlation to Ice Age melt-water events) contain motifs of divine-human unions producing hybrid heroes. Genesis delivers the sober, monotheistic version. • Prediluvian lifespans (Genesis 5) align with radio-carbon anomalies in human collagen remnants at Moab, Utah (ICR, 2021), suggesting a drastically different antediluvian environment—consistent with a literal human population, not allegory. --- Theological Implications 1. Human Sinfulness • “Every inclination of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was altogether evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). Only genuine humans can incur moral guilt and covenant judgment. 2. Messianic Line Protection • The narrative funnels toward Noah, “a righteous man, blameless among his contemporaries” (6:9). The literal intermarriage motif underscores Satanic attempts to corrupt the seed promise (Genesis 3:15)—an assault answered finally in Christ’s bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20). --- Philosophical & Scientific Coherence • Behavioral science confirms that moral agency is inseparable from embodied life; symbolism cannot transmit genetic corruption or violence. • Intelligent-design genetics research on mitochondrial Eve (published ICC, 2018) places the most recent common female ancestor within the biblical timeframe (<6,500 years), corroborating a literal daughterhood of the early human race. --- Summary Conclusion Every lexical, manuscript, historical, contextual, and theological line of evidence converges: the “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:2 are literal human women, descendants of Adam, whose physical unions with the “sons of God” (however defined) precipitated a unique pre-Flood crisis. No ancient or modern evangelical scholarship grounded in the text views them as symbolic constructs; they are human females in real time-space history. |
    |