Mitchell L. Chase’s Reading of Genesis 6:1–4
Genesis 6:1–4 contains one of the most cryptic and debated sections in all of Scripture. Who were the “sons of God”? What happened with the “daughters of men”? And what do we make of the Nephilim—those “mighty men of old”?
Dr. Mitchell L. Chase, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers one of the most robust, biblically grounded explorations of this passage in recent years. His article, originally a five-part series on his Biblical Theology Substack, was republished by SBTS.
Chase’s work stands out because of its clarity, respect for the biblical text, and careful engagement with history and scholarship. He affirms the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God” but departs from many traditionalists by arguing that the Nephilim were not their hybrid offspring. Instead, he presents a nuanced view that seeks to hold Scripture and ancient context in balance.
Let’s walk through his argument, quote him directly, and compare his conclusions with those from the broader historical and theological landscape.
Setting the Stage: Echoes from Genesis 1–5
Chase begins by placing Genesis 6:1–4 within the larger narrative flow of Genesis. He highlights the literary echoes from earlier chapters:
- Multiplication of mankind (Gen. 6:1) echoes God’s command in Genesis 1:28.
- God’s Spirit in Genesis 6:3 recalls Genesis 1:2.
- Marriages connect to Genesis 2.
- The language of “seeing,” “desiring,” and “taking” in Genesis 6:2 mirrors Eve’s actions in Genesis 3:6.
This pattern, he notes, links the sons of God’s behavior to the same kind of rebellion and misplaced desire that led to the Fall.
He also notes the transition from Genesis 5, which lists the genealogies from Adam to Noah—setting up the judgment and flood narrative in Genesis 6–9.
“Genesis 6:1–4 occurs between a genealogy and a judgment,” Chase writes. “Whatever 6:1–4 means, its literary placement suggests that the disobedience described there was part of what angered the Lord.”
The Four Main Interpretations
Chase outlines four interpretations for the identity of the “sons of God” and the role of the Nephilim:
1. Sethite View
This view identifies the “sons of God” as descendants of Seth and the “daughters of men” as those of Cain.
Chase acknowledges this as the most common modern view but highlights its weaknesses:
- The phrase “sons of God” never refers to Seth’s line elsewhere.
- There is no mention of Seth in Genesis 6:1–4.
- It requires heavy theological reading into a sparse text.
2. Royal/Kings View
Here, “sons of God” are powerful rulers or tyrants.
This fits the ancient Near Eastern context, where kings were sometimes called “sons of the gods.” However, Chase notes that while this view avoids the supernatural, it doesn’t explain why God would judge mankind so severely based on kings marrying women.
3. Rebellious Angels Producing Nephilim
This is the oldest view: that angelic beings sinned by marrying women, and their offspring were the Nephilim—half-angel giants.
Chase respects this interpretation but gently critiques it. He finds the phrase “Nephilim were on the earth… when the sons of God came in…” (Gen. 6:4) to imply the Nephilim were already there—not the result of the unions.
4. Rebellious Angels, but Nephilim Were Separate
Chase favors this final view.
- The “sons of God” are fallen angels.
- The marriages were sinful unions.
- But the Nephilim were mighty humans, not hybrid offspring.
“The Nephilim were on earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man,” he writes, emphasizing that “Nephilim” were contemporaneous, not necessarily offspring.
This interpretation, while ancient, is less commonly emphasized today. Chase finds it both textually consistent and theologically grounded.
The Case for Angelic “Sons of God”
Chase builds a strong lexical case for interpreting “sons of God” as angels:
- The Hebrew phrase bene elohim appears only five times in the Old Testament (Genesis 6:2, 6:4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)—always referring to divine beings.
- In Job, “sons of God” clearly refers to angels who stand before God.
He argues that Jesus’s statement in Matthew 22:30 (“angels in heaven do not marry”) doesn’t disprove the idea of rebellious angels acting on earth. These are not angels in heaven, but fallen ones.
“Jesus’s words about angels in heaven do not have to govern everything possible for rebel angels on the earth,” he says.
He adds that Genesis already depicts angels acting in embodied form (Genesis 18–19), eating food, and appearing as men. It is not outlandish, then, that rebellious angels could have crossed forbidden lines.
New Testament Confirmation: Peter and Jude
One of Chase’s most compelling sections is his synthesis of New Testament texts. He argues that 1 Peter 3:19–20, 2 Peter 2:4–10, and Jude 6–7 all reference the same event—what happened in Genesis 6.
Each of these passages:
- Mentions angels who sinned.
- Ties their sin to the “days of Noah.”
- Describes them being imprisoned in gloomy darkness until the judgment.
- Associates their sin with sexual immorality and leaving their proper place.
Chase argues that this directly aligns with the angelic rebellion in Genesis 6:
“Apparently, 1 Peter 3 and 2 Peter 2 are talking about the same event—what happened in Genesis 6:1–4 with the ‘sons of God.’”
Jude even adds a crucial word: likewise. The angels’ sin is likened to the sexual perversion of Sodom and Gomorrah, reinforcing the theme of unnatural unions.
What About the Nephilim?
Chase departs from the traditional angelic hybrid view by arguing that the Nephilim were not the children of these unions.
- Genesis 6:4 says they “were on the earth in those days and also afterward, when…” indicating they already existed.
- The text calls them “mighty men” and “men of renown”—not half-angelic hybrids.
“The Nephilim were human warriors, which… brings us to the third point,” Chase notes. “They are called men—mighty men, even giants.”
This interpretation allows Chase to maintain the biblical integrity of angelic rebellion without introducing offspring that would require theological explanations not found in the text.
A Return to the Oldest View
Interestingly, Chase’s argument mirrors the earliest Jewish and Christian interpretations.
- The Septuagint (LXX) translates “sons of God” as “angels.”
- 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Dead Sea Scrolls expand on the idea of angelic rebellion.
- Early church fathers—Justin Martyr, Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian—affirm the angelic view.
As documented in the Chasing the Giants research series, this view only fell out of favor due to the influence of Augustine in the 4th–5th century, who popularized the Sethite view.
A Thoughtful and Balanced Conclusion
Mitchell Chase offers a deeply respectful, biblically faithful, and historically informed interpretation of Genesis 6. He acknowledges the strangeness of the angel view but reminds us that Scripture is often filled with mystery:
“Don’t reject the ‘sons of God are angels’ view because of how strange it seems.”
By carefully engaging the text, ancient interpretations, and the New Testament, Chase brings clarity to one of Scripture’s most perplexing passages.
Why this Matters
Dr. Mitchell L. Chase is not just a scholar of biblical texts—he’s a teacher, preacher, and pastor deeply invested in helping others understand the Word of God. As Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he brings both academic rigor and pastoral care to his work. With a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from SBTS, years of teaching at Boyce College, and over a decade of pastoral ministry at Kosmosdale Baptist Church, Dr. Chase bridges the worlds of scholarship and the local church. His published books, including Short of Glory and 40 Questions About Typology and Allegory, reflect his commitment to biblical clarity and theological depth. When he speaks on topics like Genesis 6, he does so with both scholarly authority and a heart for God’s truth.
Dr. Chase’s work reflects the very goal of this site: to cut through the noise and speculation and bring grounded, accessible scholarship to a topic long misrepresented.
Genesis 6:1–4 is not a fringe text. It is a real part of God’s Word. By understanding it rightly, we gain insight not only into ancient history but into the biblical worldview of rebellion, sin, judgment—and ultimately, redemption.
